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 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 inuâ—ili 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 Markâ—am 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 eaptionis 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 Magna 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
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 M r. 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 M r. Attorney the Cause was maintained to be a clear proof among many others 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 mantioned 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 Consilio 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 Fellony 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
that daie that I shall dare to lift up my arm to touch that forbidden fruit those flowers of his princely Crown and Diadem But yet in 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 maintenance 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 〈◊〉 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 mans 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 from imprisonment I will inforce the reason further by a Rule in Law and some cases in Law upon that Rule The Rule is this That Corporalis injuria non recipit aestimationem è fuâ—uro 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 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 nonest 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 Frankland 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
the Saxon Heptarchie whose Laws are yet to be seen published as some think by Parliament as he sayes to that end ut qui sub uno Rege sub una Lege regerentur Liber Lichfield And though the book of Lichfield speaking of the troublesome times of the Danes saies that then Ius sopitum erat in Regno Leges consuetudines sopitae sunt and prava voluntas vis violentia magis regnabant quam Iudicia vel Iustitia yet by the blessing of God a good King Edward commonly called S. Edward did awaken these Lawes Excitatas reparavit Liber de Chartsey sive Regiâ—â—rum de Chartsey reparatas decoravit decoratas confirmavit which confirmavit sheweth that good King Edward did not give those Lawes which William the Conquerour and all his Successours â—ithence that have sworn unto And here my Lords by many Cases frequent in our Modern Lawes strongly concurring with those of the ancient Saxon Kings I might if time were not precious demonstrate that our Lawes and Customes were the same I will only intreat your Lordships leave to tell you that as we have now even in those Saxon times they had their Courts Barons and Courts Leets and Sheriffs Courts by which as Tacitus saith of the Germans their Ancestours Iura reddebant per pagos vicos And I believe as we have now they had their Parliaments where new Lawes were made cum consensu Praelatorum Magnatum totius Communitatis or as another writes cum consilio Praelatorum Nobilium sapientum Laicorum I will adde nothing out of Glanvile that wrote in the time of Henry the second or Bracton that writ in the time of Henry the third only give me leave to cite that of Fortescue the learned Chancellour to Hen. 6. who writing of this Kingdome saith De Dom. polit eâ— regal Regnum illud in omnibus Nationum Regum temporibus eisdem quibus nunc regitur legibus consuetudinibus regebatur But my good Lords as the Poet said of Fame I may say of our Common Law Ingreditur solâ— caput inter nubila condit Virgil. Wherefore the cloudy part being mine I will make haste to open way for your Lordships to heare more certain Arguments and such as go on surer grounds Be pleased then to know that it is an undoubted and fundamentall point of this so ancient Common Law of England that the Subject hath a true Proprietie in his goods and possessions which doth preserve as sacred that meum and tuum that is the Nurse of Industrie the Mother of Courage and without which there can be no Justice of which meum and tuum is the proper object But this undoubted Birthright of free Subjects hath latelie not a little been invaded prejudiced by pressures the more grievous because they have been pursued by Imprisonments contrary to the Franchise of this Land And when according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm redresse hath been sought for in a legall way by demanding Habeas Corpus from the Judges and a discharge or triall according to the Law of the Land successe hath failed which hath now inforced the Commons in this present Parliament assembled to examine by Acts of Parliaments Presidents and Reasons the truth of English Subjects Liberties which I shall leave to learned Gentlemen whose weightie Arguments I hope will leave no place in your Lordships memories for the errours and infirmities of your humblest Servant that doth thankfully acknowledge the great favour of your most honourable and patient attention The Argument made by M r Littleton at the command of the House of Commons out of Acts of Parliament and Authorities of Law expounding the same at the first Conference with the Lords concerning the Liberty of the Person of every Free-man My Lords UPon the occasions delivered by the Gentleman that last spake your Lordships have heard the Commons have taken into their serious Consideration the matter of Personall Libertie and after long debate thereof on divers dayes as well by solemn Arguments as single propositions of doubts and answers to the end no scruple might remaine in any mans breast unsatisfied they have upon a full search and cleer understanding of all things pertinent to the Question â—nanimously declared That no Free-man ought to be committed or detained in prison or otherwise restrained by the command of the King or the Privie Councell or any other unlesse some cause of the commitment detainer or restraint be expressed for which by Law he ought to be committed detained or restrained And they have sent me with some other of their Members to represent unto your Lordships the true grounds of such their resolutions and have charged me particularly leaving the reasons of Law and Presidents for others to give your Lordships satisfaction that this Libertie is established and confirmed by the whole State the King the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Commons by severall Acts of Parliament The authority whereof is so great that it can receive no answer save by interpretation or repeal by future Statutes And these that I shall mind your Lordships of are so direct to the point that they can bear no other exposition at all and sure I am they are still in force The first of them is the Granâ— Charter of the Liberties of England first granted in the 17 yeare of King Iohn and renewed in the 9 yeare of King Hen. 3. and since confirmed in Parliament above 30 times Cap. 29. the words are these Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur aut diseisietur de libero tenemento suo vel libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis aut utlagetur aut exuletur aut aliquo modo destruatur nec super cum ibimus nec super cum mittemus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae These words Nullus liber home c. are expresse enough yet it is remarkable that Matthew Paris an Authour of speciall credit doth observe fo 432. that the Charter of the 9. H. 3. was the very same as that of the 17. of King Iohn in nullo dissimiles are his words and that of King Iohn he setteth down verbatim fol. 342. and there the words are directlie Nec eum in carcerem mittemus and such a corruption as is now in the print might easily happen 'twixt 9. H. 3. and 28. E. 1. when this Charter was first exemplified But certainly there is sufficient left in that which is extant to decide this question for the words are That no Free-man shall be taken or imprisoned but by the lawfull judgement of his Peeres which is by Jury Peeres for Pares ordinary Jurours for others who are their Peeres or by the Law of the Land Which words Law of the Land must of necessity be understood in this Nation to be by due processe of Law and not the Law of the Land generally otherwise it would comprehend Bond-men whom we call Villains
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 virâ—râ—m honorabilis Concilii Dominorum Regis Regina 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 is true he was so But the Return and this Commitment mentioned in it have no reference to any such offence nor hath the Bailment of him relation to any thing but to the absolute Commitment by the Privie Councell So that the answer to the like objection made against Overton's Case satisfies this also The sixth of these is of Q. Elizabeth's dayes It is Mich. 9. Eliz Rot. 35. the Case of Thomas Lawrence This Lawrence came in by habeas Corpus returned by the Sheriffs of London to be detained in prison per mandatum Concilii Dominae Reginae Qui committitur Marescallo c. super hoc traditur in ballium An Objection hath been invented against this also It hath been said that this man was pardoned and indeed it appeares so in the margent of the Roll where the word pardonatur is entred But cleerly his enlargement by Baile was upon the Bodie of the Return only unto which that Note of Pardon in the Margent of the Roll hath no relation at all And can any man think that a man pardoned for what offence soever it be might not as well be committed for some Arcanum or matter of State as one that is pardoned The seventh of these is in the same yeare and of Easter Terme following It is Pasche 9. Eliz. Rot. 68. Robert Constable's Case He was brought by habeas Corpus out of the Tower and in the Return it appeared he was committed per mandatum privati Concilii dict Dominae Reginae Qui committitur Marr. postea isto eodem Termino traditur in ballium The like Objection hath been made to this as to that before of Lawrence but the self same Answer cleerly satisfies for both of them The eighth is of the same Queens time in Pasche 20. Eliz. Rot. 72. Iohn Browning's Case This Browning came by habeas Corpus out of the Tower whether he had been committed was returned to have been committed per privatum Concilium Dominae Reginae Qui committitur Maresc Et postea isto eodem Termino traditur in ballium To this it hath been said That it was done at the chief Justice Wraye's Chamber and not in Court and thus the authoritie of the President hath been lessened and sleighted If it had been at his Chamber it would have proved at least thus much That S r Christopher Wraye then chief Justice of the King's Bench being a grave learned and upright Judge knowing the Law to be so did baile this Browning and so enlarge him And even so farre were the President of value enough But it is plain that though the habeas Corpus were returnable indeed as it appeares in the Record it self at his Chamber in Serjeant's Inne yet he only committed him to the Kings Bench presently and referred the consideration of enlarging him to the Court who afterwards did it For the Record saith Et postea isto eodem Termino traditur in ballium which cannot be intended of an enlargement at the chief Justice his Chamber The ninth of this first kind is in Hill 40. Eliz. Rot. 62. Edward Harecourts Case He was imprisoned in the Gate-house and that per Dominos de private Concilio Dominae Reginae pro certis causis eos moventibus et ei ignotis and upon his habeas Corpus was returned to be therefore only detained Qui committitur Marr. c. Et postea isto eodem Termino traditur in ballium To this never any colour of answer hath been yet offered The tenth is Catesbies Case in the Vacation after Hillary Terme 43. E. Rot. 37. Robert Castesby was committed to the Fleet per warrant diversorum prenobilium virorum de private Concilio Dominae Reginae He was brought before Justice Fennor one of the Judges of the Kings Bench by habeas Corpus at Winchester House in Southwark commissus fuit Marr. per praesat Edw. Fennor statim traditur in ballium The eleventh is Richard Beckwith's Case which was in Hillary 12. of King Iames R. 153. He was returned upon his habeas Corpus to have
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 be imprisoned before he be convicted according to the Law but if this return shall be good then his imprisonment shall not continue on for a time but for ever and the Subjects of this Kingdome may be restrained of their liberties perpetually and by Law their can be no remedy for the Subject and therefore this return cannot stand with the Laws of the Realm or that of Magna Charta Nor with the statute of 28 Ed. 3. ca. 3. for if a man be not bailable upon this return they cannot have the benefit of these two Laws which are the inheritance of the Subject If your Lordship shall think this to be a sufficient cause then it goeth to a perpetuall imprisonment of the subject for in all those causes which may concern the Kings Subjects and are appliable to all times and cases we are not to reflect upon the present time and government where justice and mercy floweth but we are to look what may betide us in the time to come hereafter It must be agreed on all sides that the time of the first commitment doth not appear in this return but by a latter warrant from the Lords of the Councell there is a time indeed expressed for the continuing of him in prison and that appeares but if this shall be a good cause to remand these Gentlemen to prison they may lie there this seven yeares longer and seven yeares after them nay all the dayes of their lives And if they sue out a writ of Habeas corpus it is but making a new warrant and they shall be remanded and shall never have the advantage of the Laws which are the best inheritance of every Subject And in Ed. 6. fol. 36. the Laws are called the great inheritance of every Subject and the inheritance of inheritances without which inheriritance we have no inheritance These are the exceptions I desire to offer to your Lordship touching the return for the insufficiency of the cause returned and the defect of the time of the first commitment which should have been expressed I will not labour in objections till they be made against me in regard the sttatute of Westminster primo is so frequent in every mans mouth that at the Common Law those men that were committed in four cases were not replevisable viz. those that were taken for the death of a man or the commandment of the King or his Justices for the forest I shall speak something to it though I intend not to spend much time about it for it toucheth not this Case we have in question For that is concerning a Case of the Common Law when men are taken by the Kings writs and not by word of mouth and it shall be so expounded as Master Stamford fol. 73. yet it is nothing to this Case for if you will take the true meaning of that statute it extends not at all to this writ of Habeas corpus for the words are plain they shall be replevisable by the Common writ that is by the writ de homine replegiando directed to the Sheriffe to deliver them if they were baileable but the Case is above the Sheriffe and he is not to be Judge in it whether the cause of the commitment be sufficient or not as it appears in Fitz Herbert de homine replegiando and many other places and not of the very words of the statute this is clear for thereby many other causes mentioned as the death of a man the commandment of the Justices c. In which the statute saith men are not replevisable but will a man conceive that the meaning is that they shall not be bailed at all but live in perpetuall imprisonment I think I shall not need to spend time in that it is so plain let me but make one instance A man is taken de morte hominis he is not baileable by writ saith this statute that is by the common writ there was a common writ for this Case and that was called de odio acia as appeareth Bracton Coron 34. this is the writ intended by the statute which is a common writ and not a speciall writ But my
cause of his imprisonment to be shewn upon the return so that the Court may adjudge of the cause whether the cause of the imprisonment be lawfull or not and because I will not trouble the Court with so many presidents but such as shall suit with the cause in question I will onely produce and vouch such presidents whereas the party was committed either by the commandment of the King or otherwise by the commandment of the Privy Councell which Stampford fol. 72. tearmeth the mouth of the King such acts as are done by the Privy Councell being as Acts done by the King himself And in all these causes you shall find that there is a cause returned as well as a speciale mandatum domini Regis c. or mandatum Privati Concilii domini Regis whereby the Court may adjudge of the cause and bail them if they shall see cause In the eighth of Henry the seventh upon return of an Habeas corpus awarded for the body of one Roger Sherry it appeareth that he was committed by the Mayor of Windsor for suspicion of felony and ad sectam ipsius Regis pro quibusdam feloniis transgressionibus ac per mandatum domini Regis 21 Hen. the seventh upon the return of an Habeas corpus sent for the body of Hugh Pain it appeared that he was committed to prison per mandatum dominorum Privati Concilii domini Regis pro suspicione feloniae Primo Henrici Octavi Rot. 9. upon the return of an Habeas corpus sent for the body of one Thomas Harrison and others it appears that they were committed to the Earl of Shrewsbury being Marshall of the houshould Per mandatum Domini Regis pro suspicione feloniae pro homicidio facto super Mare 3 4 Philip. Mariae upon a return of an Habeas corpus sent for the body of one Peter Man it appeareth that he was committed pro suspicione feloniae ac per mandatum Domini Regis Reginae 4 5 Philippi Mariae upon the return of an Habeas corpus sent for the body of one Thomas Newport it appeared that he was committed to the Tower pro suspicione contrafact monetae per privatum Concilium domini Regis Reginae 33 Elizabethae upon the return of an Habeas corpus for the body of one Lawrence Brown it appeareth that he was committed per mandatum Privati Concilii dominae Reginae pro diversis causis ipsam Reginam tangen ac etiam pro suspicione proditionis So as by all these presidents it appeareth where the return is either Per mandatum domini Regis or Per mandatum dominorum Privati Concilii domini Regis there is also a cause over and besides the mandatum returned as unto that which may be objected that per mandatum domini Regis or Privati Concilii domini Regis is a good return of his imprisonment I answer First that there is a cause for it is not to be presumed that the King or Councell would commit one to prison without some offence and therefore this mandatum being occasioned by the offence or fault the offence or fault must be the cause and not the command of the King or Councell which is occasioned by the cause Secondly it apeares that the jurisdiction of 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 7â—31 Henry the sixth and their jurisdictions being a limited jurisdiction the cause and grounds of their commitment 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
in Chambers but publick in Court where every one may hear which causeth Judgement to be given with maturity Your Lordships have heard the particulers delivered by my brethren how that Councel being assigned to those 4. Gentlemen in the latter end of Michaelmass Term their Cause received hearing and upon consideration of the Statutes and Records we found some of them to be according to the good old Law of Magna Charta but we thought that they did not come so close to this Case as that bayl should be thereupon presently granted My Lords the Habeas Corpus consisteth of 3. parts the Writ the Return upon the Writ or schedule and the Entry or rule reciting the Habeas Corpus and the Return together with the opinion of the Court either a remittitur or traditur in ballium In this Case a remittitur was granted which we did that we might take better advisement upon the Case and upon the remittitur my Lords they might have had a new Writ the next day and I wish they had because it may be they had seen more and we had been eased of a great labour And my Lords when the Attorney upon the remittitur pressed an Entry we all straitly charged the Clark that he should make no other Entry then such as our Predecessors had usually made in like Cases for the difference my Lords betwixt remittitur and remittitur quousque I could never yet finde any I have now sat in this Court 15. years and I should know something surely if I had gone in a Mill so long dust would cleave to my cloaths I am old and have one foot in the grave therefore I will look to the better part as near as I can But omnia habere in memoria in nullo errare divinum potiùs est quam humanum THE LORD CHIEF IUSTICE SAith he shall not speak with confidence unless he might stand right in the opinion of the House and protested what he spake the day before was not said by him with any purpose to trench upon the Priviledges of this House but out of that respect which by his place he thought he owed to the King he said concerning the point he was to speak of that he would not trouble the Lords with things formerly repeated wherein he concurred with his brethren He said if it were true the King might not commit they had done wrong in not partly delivering for my Lords saith he these Statutes and good Laws being all in force we meant not to trench upon any of them most of them being Commentaries upon Magna Charta but I know not any Statute that goeth so far that the King may not commit Therefore justly we think we delivered the interpretation thereof to that purpose for my Lords Lex terrae is not to be found in this Statute they gave me no example neither was there any Cause shewed in the Return A President my Lords that hath run in a storm doth not much direct us in point of Law and Records are the best Testimonies These Presidents they brought being read we shewed them wherein they were mistaken if we have erred erramus cum Patribus and they can shew no President but that our Predecessors have done as we have done sometimes bayling sometimes remitting sometimes discharging Yet we do never bayl any committed by the King or his Councel till his pleasure be first known Thus did the Lord Chief Justice Coke in Raynards Case They say this would have been done if the King had not written but why then was the Letter read and published and kept and why was the Town Clark sent carefully to enquire because the Letter so directed whether these men offered for bayl were subsedy men the Letter sheweth also that Beckwith was committed for suspition of being acquaninted with the Gun-Pouder-Treason but no proof being produced the King left him to be bayled The Earle of WARVVICKS speech 21. April 1628. MY Lords I will observe something out of the Law wherein this liberty of the Subjects Person is founded and some things out of Presidents which have been alleadged For the Law of Magna Charta and the rest concerning these points they are acknowledged by all to be of force and that they were to secure the Subjects from wrongfâ—ll imprisonment as well or rather more concerning the King then the Subject why then besides the grand Charter and those 6. other Acts of Parliament in the very point we know that Magna Charta hath been at least 30. times confirmed so that upon the matter we have 6. or 7. and thereby Acts of Parliament to confirm this liberty although it was made a matter of derision the other day in this House One is that of 36. E. 3. N o. 9. and another in the same year N o. 20. not printed but yet as good as those that are and that of 42. E. 3. cap. 3. so express in the point especially the Petition of the Commons that year which was read by M r. Littleton with the Kings answer so full and free from all exception to which I refer your Lordships that I know not have any thing in the World can be more plain and therefore if in Parliament ye should make any doubt of that which is so fully confirmed in Parliament and in case so clear go about by new glosses to alter the old and good Law we shall not onely forsake the steps of our Ancestors who in Cases of small importance would answer nolumus mutare leges Angliâ— but we shall yield up and betray our right in the greatest inheritance the Subjects of England hath and that is the Laws of England and truely I wonder how any man can admit of such a gloss upon the plain Text as should overthrow the force of the Law for whereas the Law of Magna Charta is that no Free-man shall be imprisoned but by lawfull judgement of his Peers or the Law of the Land the King hath power to commit without Cause which is a sence not onely expresly contrary to other Acts of Parliament and those especially formerly cited but against Common sence For M r. Attorney confesseth this Law concerns the King why then where the Law saith the King shall not commit but by the Law of the Land the meaning must be as M r. Attorney would have it that the King must not commit but at his own pleasure and shall we think that our Ancestors were so foolish to hazard their Persons Estates and labour so much to get a Law and to have it 30. times confirmed that the King might not commit his Subjects but at his own pleasure and if he did commit any of his Subjects without a Cause shewen then he must lie during pleasure then which nothing can be imagined more ridiculous and contrary to true reason For the Presidents I observe that there hath been many shewen by which it appears to me evidently that such as have been committed by the Kings Councel
to shew clearly it shall not be his fault if this be not a happy Parliament His Majesty hath commanded me to desire this House clearly to let him know whether they will rest upon his Royal word and promise made at several times and especially by my Lord Keepers Speech made in his own presence which if they do he doth assure you that it shall be royally and really performed After speaking of himself and the nature of his place under his Majesty he proceeded in these words GIve me leave freely to tell you that I know by experience that by the place I hold under his Majesty if I will discharge the duty of my place and the Oath I have taken to his Majesty I must commit and neither express the cause to the Jaylor nor to the Judges nor to any Councellour in England but to the King himself yet do not think I go without ground fo reason or take this power committed to me to be unlimmitted Yea rather it is to me a charge burthen and danger for if I by this power shall commit the poorest porter if I do it not upon a just cause if it may appear the burthen will fall upon me heavier then the Law can inflict for I shall loose my credit with his Majesty and my place And I beseech you consider whether those that have been in the same place have not committed freely and not any doubt made of it nor any complaint made by the Subject Veneris 2. May 1628. A Report was this day made from the grand Committee for grievances concerning the cause of Nicholas Clegat Cittizen and Vintner of London imprisoned by the Lord Major and Aldermen of the said Citie for refusing to lend a certain summe of money assessed upon him by the Company of Vintners of London whereof he is free towards the proportion of money imposed upon the Company by an Act of Common-Councel of the said Citie in pursuance of a contract of Land with his Majesty By which report it appeared that the said grand Committee had unanimously agreed that the said Citie might make Acts of Councel so as they were consonant to Law and reason and for regulating and deciphering of trade agreeable to reason and the Law of the Realm and might leavy money of the Cittizens by Act of Common-Councel for building or repairing of their Walls Gates or making or cleansing of Sewers or other like causes tending to the general and publick good and welfare of the Citie or towards Triumphs or other like occasions tending to the Honour of the Citie in general but could not by such Act of Common-Councel tax or leavy money towards the purchasing of Lands or other like occasion forreign to the government of the Citie Whereupon it is resolved by the House of Commons super totam materiam that the said Commitment of the said Nicholas Clegat was unlawfull and that a Petition should go from the House to his Majesty for the inlargement of the said Nicholas Clegat his commitment by the Lord Major and Aldermen being since strengthned by special command Henry TOMPSON one of the Shrieffs and Robert HENISVVORTH Alderman of the Citie of YORK their submission for their indirect chusing of S r. Thomas SAVIL Knight I Henry Tompson one of the Shrieffs of the Citie of York do hereby acknowledge to have offended the Lord Major and all the Cominalty of the Citie by the undue pronouncing and return of S r. Thomas Savil Knight to be one of the Cittizens to serve in this Parliament for the said Citie whereas I ought of right to have pronounced and returned in his place M r. Thomas Royle Alderman of the said Citie I am hartily sorry for my said offence and misdemeanour and crave pardon of my Lord Major and all the Cominalty and in particuler of the said Alderman Hoyl for the same I Robert Henisworth Alderman of the Citie of York do acknowledge that I have offended the Lord Major and all the Cominalty of of the said Citie by my undue preparing and practising the election of S r. Thomas Savill Knight to be chosen one of the Cittizens for the said Cittie of York to serve in this present Parliament I am hartily sorry for my said offence and do desire my Lord Major and all the said Cominalty to pardon me for the same Propositions drawn for the defence of this Kingdom and the annoyance of the enemies of the same by Sea THat every Shire in England shall be injoyned on the charge of the Countrey to set forth one Ship well maned and victualled for 7. Moneths and to be of the burthen of 500 300 or 140. Tuns at the least according to the ability of the Shire in the opinion of the State That every Port or Sea-Town according to their abillity be injoyned to do the like London may well furnish 10. Bristol 3. and the rest according to their abillity And such of the Sea-Towns as are not of abillity to set forth Ships of the burthen aforesaid to furnish out Pinnaces of 60 or 80 Tuns for Light-Horsmen or Intelligencers Those Ships will amount to 80. Sail and above and these to be divided into 4. Squadrons adjoyning unto every Squadron one of the Kings Ships for their Admiral The first Squadron to lye off and on the Western Ilands and as â—igh as theiâ— aâ—â—ries for 〈◊〉 men the Caracks and the Plate-Fleet and all other trading that way 〈…〉 The fourth Squadron to keep the Narrow Seas to awe the Dunkerkers to take all the French trade and so Northward and this Squadron to be still relieved with fresh Ships as the other shall grow foul or come to any misfortune so as this Squadron may continually keep the Seas most part of the year That no Master of these Ships be owner or have any part in her that he goeth in Master of for they will be unwilling to bring their Shin in fight or danger and use many tricks and devices especially if there be an ignorant Captain Therefore it is expedient likewise that every Shire should nominate a Captain for the Ship that they furnish out for the avoiding of ignorant and insufficient Captains That in London Pâ—rtsmouth or elsew here where the State shall think fit there be Store-houses appointed for the receipt of such Prizes as shall be taken by any of the 4. Squadrons That every County or Sea-Town that furnisheth the said shipping may nominate and have a Master of their own free election that may have power in the behalf of the Counties and Sea-Towns as the other Officers that shall be appointed for the King for the opening of decks of the Prizes receiving the goods into the said Store-houses and for the divideing and disposing them according That what Prizes any of the 4. Squadrons shall take be brought into one of the Port Towns where those Store-houses are appointed and the benefit of all Prizes what Squadron soever of the 4. sendeth them in be divided the Kings part
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 an 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 he 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 Prisoh to another and his whole life shall be a preregrination or wayfairing from one Goal to another and he shall never know the cause not be able to compalin 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 that the Prisoner must sustain all without satisfaction or knowing the cause The onely reason given by those of the other opinion That it is requisite the King and Councel should have power to command the detainer of a man in Prison for sometime without expressing the cause is because it is supposed that the manifestation of the cause at first may prevent the discovery of a Treason The reason is answered by the remedy proposed by this Act it being proposed that it shall be provided by this Bill that upon our commitment we may have instantly recourse to the Chancery for an Habeas Corpus retornable in that Court which is alwayes open that partly upon the receipt thereof the Writ must be returned and the cause thereupon expressed If then this remedy be really the cause of commitment must partly appear which contradicts the former reason of State And in my own opinion we ought not onely to take care that the Subject should be delivered out of Prison but to prevent his imprisonment The Statute of Magna Charta and the rest of the Acts providing that no man should be imprisoned but by the Law of the Land And although the King or Councel as it hath been objected by might may commit us without cause notwithstanding any Laws we can make Yet I am sure without such an Act of Parliament such commitment can have no Legal colour and I would be loath we should make a Law to endanger our selves for which reasons I conceive that there being so many wayes to evade from this Act we shall be in worse case by it then without it providing no remedy to prevent our imprisonment without expressing the cause to be Lawfull and administers excuses for continuing us in Prison as I have before declared and thus for providing for one particuler out of reason of State which possibly may fall out in an age or two we shall spring a leak which may sinck all our Liberties and open a gap through which Magna Charta and the rest of the Statutes may issue out and vanish I therefore conclude that in my poor understanding which I submit to better Judgements I had rather depend upon our former resolutions and the Kings gracious Declarations then to pass an Act in such manner as hath been proposed The Speakers speech to his MAJESTY in the Bancketting-House 5. May 1628. Most gracious and dread Soveraign YOur Loyal and dutifull Subjects the Commons assembled in Parliament by several Messages from your Majesty especially by that your must Royal Declaration delivered by the Lord Keeper before both Houses have to their exceeding joy and comfort received many ample expressions of your Princely care and tender affection towards them with a gracious promise and assurance that your Majesty will govern according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm and so maintain all your Subjects in the just freedom of their Persons and safety of their Estates that all their Rights and Liberties may be by them enjoyed with as much freedom and security in your time as in any age heretofore by their Ancestors under the best of your Royal Progenitors For this so great and gracious a favour enlarged by a continual intimation of your Majesties confidence in the proceeding of this House they do by me their Speaker make a full return of most humble thanks to your Majesty withall dutifull acknowledgement of your grace and goodness herein extended to them And whereas in one of these Messages delivered from your Majesty there was an expression of your desire to know whether this House would rest upon your Royal word and promise assuring them if they would it should be Royally and really performed As they again present their humble thanks for this seconding and strengthning of your former Royal expressions so in all humbleness they assure your Majesty that their greatest confidence is and ever must be in your gracious favour and
his Majesty to hazard an end of such unspeakable consequence upon the admittance of this addition into our Petition whereof as we have shewed the omission at this time can by no means harm the Kings Prerogative the expression may produce manifold inconveniences and therefore since the admittance of your Lordships addition into our Petition is incoherent and incompatible with the body of the same since there is no necessary use of it for the saving of the Kings rerogative since the moderation of our Petition deserveth your Lordships cheerfull conjunction with us since this addition is unseasonable for the time and inconvenient in respect of the place where your Lordships would have it inserted and lastly may prove a disservice to his Majesty I conclude with a most affectionate prayer to your Lordships to joyn with the House of Commons in presenting this Petition unto his sacred Majesty as it is without this addition The KINGS speech in the Higher House at the meeting of both Houses 2. June 1628. Gentlemen I Am come hither to perform my duty and I think no man will think it long since I have not taken so many dayes in answering of the Petition as you have spent weeks in framing it and I am come hither to shew you that as well in formall things as in essential I desire to give you as much content as in me lies The Lord KEEPER in explanation of the same MY Lords and you the Knights Cittizens and Burgesses of the House of Commons his Majesty hath commanded me to say unto you that he takes it in good part that in consideration how to settle your own Liberty you have generally professed in both Houses that you have no intention for to lessen or diminish his Majesties Prerogative wherein as you have cleared your own intentions so his Majesty now comes to clear his and to strike a firm league with his people which is ever decreed to be most constant and perpetual when the conditions are equal and known to be so These cannot be in a more happy estate then when your Liberties shall be an ornament and strength to his Majesties Prerogative and his Prerogative a defence to your Liberties In this his Majesty doubts not but both you and he shall take a mutual comfort hereafter and for his part he is resolved to give an example in so using of his power as hereafter you shall have no cause to complain This is the summe of that which I am to say to you Here read your own Petition and his Majesties gracious answer The KINGS answer to the Petition of Right 2. June by the Lord KEEPER THe King willeth that Right be done according to the Laws and Customes of the Realm and that the Statutes be put in due execution that the Subject may have no cause to complain of any wrong or oppression contrary to their just Rights and Liberties to the preservation whereof he holds himself in conscience as well obliged as of his Prerogative Sir JOHN ELLIOTS Speech 3. June Mr. Speaker WE sit here as the great Councel of the King and in that capacitie it is our duty to take into consideration the State and affairs of the Kingdom and where there is occasion to give them in a true representation by way of council and advice with what we conceive necessary or expedient for them In this consideration I confess many a sadd thought hath affrighted me and that not onely in respect of our dangers from abroad which yet I know are great as they have been often in this place prest and dilated to us but in respect of our disorders here at home we do inforce those dangers and by which they are occasioned For I believe I shall make clear unto you that I oth at first the cause of these dangers were disorders and our disorders now are yet our greatest dangers and not so much the potency of our enemies as the weakness of our selves do threaten us and that saying of the Father may be assumed by us Non tam potentia sua quam negligentia nostra Our want of true devotion to heaven our insincerity and doubling in Religion our want of Councels our precipitate actions the sufficiency or unfaithfulness of our Generals abroad the corruptions of our Ministers at home the impoverishing of the Soveraign the oppression and depression the exhausting of our treasures waste of our provisions Consumption of our Ships destruction of Men This makes the advantage to our enemies not the reputation of their Arms. And if in these there be not reformation we need no Foes abroad time it self will ruine us To shew this more fully as I believe you will all hold it necessary that there seem not an aspertion on the State or imputation on the Government as I have known such mentions misinterpreted which far it is from me to propose that have none but clear thoughts of the Excellency of his Majestie nor can have other ends but the advancement of his glory I shall desire a little of your patience extraordinarily to open the particulars which I shall do with what brevity I may answerable to the importance of the cause and the necessity now upon us yet with such respect and observation to the time as I hope it shall not be troublesome For the first then our insincerity and dubling in Religon the greatest and most dangerous disordor of all others which hath never been unpunished and of which we have so many strong examples of all States and in all times to awe us What testimony doth it want will you have Authority os bookes look on the collection of the Committee for Religion there is too clear an evidence will you have Recors see then the Commission procured for composition with the Papists in the North Mark the proceedings thereupon you will finde them to little less amounting then a tolleration in effect thought upon some slight payments and the easiness in them will likewise shew the favour that 's intended Will you have proofs of men witness the hopes witness the presumptions witness the reports of all the Papists generally observe the dispositions of Commanders the trust of Officers the confidence of secrecies of imployments in this Kingdom in Ireland and elsewhere they all will shew it hath too great a certainty and unto this add but the incontrolable evidence of that all-powerfull hand which we have felt so sorely that gave it full assurance for as the Heavens oppose themselves to us for our impiety so it is we that first oppose the Heavens For the second our want of Councels that great disorder in State with which there cannot be stability if effects may shew their causes as they are after a perfect demonstration of them our misfortunes our disasters serve to prove it and the consequence they draw with them If reason be allowed in this dark age the judgment of dependencies and foresight of contingencies in affairs confirm it For if we view our selves
14 M r. Goodwins speech March 22. pag. 18 Sir Francis Seymour's speech ibid. Sir Thomas Wentworth's speech pag. 20 The speech and Argument of M r. Creswell of Lincolnes Inne concerning the subjects grievance by the late Imprisonment of their persons pag. 21 Sir Benjam Ruddier's speech pag. 27 Sir Robert Phillip's speech pag. 28 Sir Thomas Edmonds pag. 30 Sir Iohn Elliot ibid. Sir Hum May ibid. The Petition for the fast March 26. 1628. pag. 31 The Kings Propositions March 28. pag. 32 Three grand questions ibid. Sir Iohn Coke his speech at a Conference between the Lords and Commons about the Petition to the King against Recusants pag. 33 The Petition of both Houses to his Majesty concerning Recusants March 31. pag. 34 The Kings Answer to the Petition against Recusants pag. 37 The Answer to the same Petition by the Lord Keeper Coventry pag. 38 Sir Edward Cokes speech March 25. upon a Question of law in point of Judgement given in the Kings Bench Mich. 3. Caroli viz. that a Prisoner detain'd by Commitment per special Mandat Regis without expressing a Cause is not Bailable wherein he held negatively pag. 39 The substance of the Kings speech upon the relating of the proceedings of the Parliament to him by the Counsellers of the Commons house of Parliament April 4. pag. 41 The Duke of Buckinghams speech to his Majesty the 4 of April ibid. S r Iohn Elliot in Answer to M r Secretary Coke's message of thanks from the King and the Duke of Buckingham delivered in the Commons house of Parliament April 5 pag. 43 A message by Secretary Coke from the King to the lower house April the 7 pag. 44 S r Benjamin Ruddier's speech upon the Receit of his Majesties Answer to the petition against Recusants pag. 45 The Kings message to the House of Commons by M r Speaker April 12. pag. 46. The petition concerning billetting of souldiers April 14. pag. 47 Nine heads of the House of Commons to the Speaker pag. 49 The Speaker S r Iohn Finches speech upon the nine heads pag. 50 The Kings Answer to the petition concerning billetting of souldiers pag. 53 S r Dudley Diggs his Introduction pag. 54 The Argument made by M r Littleton at the Command of the House of Commons out of Acts of Parliament and Authorities of Law expounding the same at the first Conference with the Lords touching the person of every Freeman pag. 56 The Objections of the Kings Councell with the Answers made thereto at the two Conferences touching the same matter pag. 65 The true Copies of the Records not printed which were used on either side of that part of the debate pag. 70 The Argument which by Command of the House of Commons was made at their first Conference with the Lords touching the liberty of the person of every Freeman out of presidents of Record and resolutions of Judges in former times by M r Selden pag. 76 The whole copies of the presidents of Record mentioned in one of the Arguments made at the first conference with the Lords touching the liberty of the person of every Free-man pag. 92 S r Edward Coke pag. 107 The Arguments of Serjeant Bramston on the Habeas Corpus pag. 111 The Argument of M r Noye upon the Habeas Corpus pag. 117 The Argument of M r Selden upon the Habeas Corpus pag. 122 The Argument of M r Calthrop upon the Habeas Corpus pag. 125 The substance of the Objections made by M r Attorney generall 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 Judges in former times touching the liberty of the person of every Free-man and the Answer and replies presently then made by the House of Commons to these Objections pag. 121 The proceedings against the Earl of Suffolk April 14. p. 135 Severall speeches made at the Debatesconcerning the Kings propositions pag. 138 M r Alford ibid. S r Robert Maunsell ibid. S r Francis Seymour ibid. S r Peter Hayman ibid. M r Pimme ibid. Secretary Coke ibid. S r Dudley Diggs pag. 139 M r Spencer ibid. M r Iohn Elliot ibid. S r Edward Coke ibid. S r Thomas Wentworth pag. 146 S r Henry Martin ibid. M r Kirton ibid. S r Robert Phillips ibid. Serjeant Hoskins ibid. Serjeant Ashleys Argument seconding M r Attorney in the behalf of his Majesty pag. 141 M r Noyes Argument April 16 pag. 144 M r Glanvills Argument pag. 145 The Answer of the Judges for matter of fact upon the Habeas Corpus April 21 pag. 146 Iudge Whitlock's speech pag. 147 Iudge Iones his speech pag. 148 Iudge Doderidges speech pag. 149 The Lord chief Iustice his speech ibid. The Earl of Warwick's speech April 21 pag. 150 The Arch Bishop of Canterburies speech at the Conference of both Houses April 25 pag. 153 The five propositions read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich April 25. 1628 ibid. S r Dudley Diggs his speech in behalf of the Commons pag. 154 S r Benjamin Ruddier's speech April 28 pag. 157 The Lord Keeper's speech April 28. pag. 157 The Bishop of Exceter's letter sent to the House of Commons April 28. pag. 158 M r Hackwell of Lincolnes Inne his speech in the lower House May 1 pag. 159 The objections against M r Hackwel's speech ibid. Secretary Coke's message May 1 pag. 161 Secretary Coke's speech concerning himself and the nature of his place under his Majesty pag. 162 Henry Tomson one of the Sheriffs and Robert Henisworth Alderman of the city of York their submission for their indirect choosing of S r Thomas Savil Knight pag. 163 Propositions drawn for the defence of this Kingdome and the annoyance of the enemies of the same by sea ibid. Iudge Andersons speech pag. 165 The Kings message May 2 by Secretary Coke pag. 167 M r Masons speech May 2 ibid. The Speakers speech to his Majesty in the banquetting house May 5 pag. 171 The Kings Answer to the House of Commons delivered by the Lord Keeper May 5 pag. 173 The Lord Cok's speech at the Conference in the painted Chamber presenting the petition of Right May 8 pag. 174 The petition of Right to the Kings most excellent Majesty pag. 175 S r Benjamin Ruddier's speech page 178 His Majesties letter to the Lords spirituall and temporall of the higher House of Parliament pag. 180 The Kings message by the Lord Keeper May 21 pag. 181 M r Masons speech concerning the addition propounded by the Lords to be added to the petition of Right pag. 182 The Reasons of the Commons House delivered by M r Glanvil why they cannot admit of the propositions tendred unto them by the Lords 186 S Henry Martin's speech pag. 188 The Kings speech in the Higher House at the meeting of both Houses Iune 2. pag. 194 The Lord Keeper in explanation of the same pag. 195 The Kings Answer to the petition of Right Iune 2.
hearts and affections loyally and religiously devoted to God and your Majesties service and to the safety of your Majesties Sacred Person we most zealously present to your Princely Wisdome craving your Majesties chearful and gracious approbation The King's Answer to the Petition against Recusants March 31. 1628. My Lords and Gentlemen I Do very well approve the method of your proceeding à Jove principium hoping that the rest of your Consultations will succeed the happier And I like the preamble of my Lord Keeper otherwise I should a little have suspected that you thought me not so carefull of Religion as I have been and ever shall be wherein I am as forward as you can desire As for the Petition I answere first in generall that I like it well and will use those as well as all other means for the maintenance and propagation of that Religion wherein I have lived and doe resolve to die But for the particulars you shall receive a more full answer hereafter And now I will only add this that as we pray to God to help us so we must help our selves for we can have no assurance of his assistance if we do ly in bed and only pray without using other means And therefore I must remember you that if we do not make provision speedily we shall not be able to put one Ship to sea this year Verbum sapienti satis est The Answer to the same Petition by the Lord Keeper Coventrey TO the first point his Majesty answereth That he will accoreding to your desire give both life and motion to the Laws that stand in force against Iesuits Seminary Priests and all that have taken Orders by authority of the Sea of Rome and to that end his Majesty will give strict order to all his Ministers for the discovering and apprehending of them and so leave them being apprehended to the triall of the Law and in case after tryall there shall be cause to respite the execution of any of them yet they shall be committed according to the example of best times to the Castle of Westbitch and there be safely kept from exercising their functions or spreading their Superstitious and dangerous Doctrine and for the receivers and abettors they shall be left to the Law To the second His Majesty granteth all that is desired in this Article and to this end will give order to the Lord Treasurer Lord high Admirall and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports that in their severall places they be carefull to see this Article fully executed giving strict charge to all such as have place or authority under them to use all diligence herein and his Majesty requireth them and all other his Officers and Ministers to have a vigilant eye upon such as dwell in dangerous places of advantage or opportunity for receiving or transporting any such as are here 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 â—ind 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 â—aith 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
which are excluded by the word liber for the generall Law of the Land doth allow their Lords to imprison them at pleasure without cause wherein they only differ from the Free-men in respect of their persons who cannot be imprisoned without a cause And that this is the true understanding of those words per legem terrae will more plainly appear by divers other Statutes that I shall use which do expound the same accordingly And although the words of this Grand Charter be spoken in the third person yet they are to be understood of Suites betwixt partie and partie at least not of them alone but even of the Kings Suites against his Subjects as will appear by the occasion of the getting of that Charter which was by reason of the differences betwixt those Kings and their people and therefore properlie to be applyed to their power over them and not to ordinarie questions 'twixt Subject and Subject The words per legale judicium parium suorum immediately precedeing the other per legem terrae are meant of trialls at the Kings Suit and not at the prosecution of a Subject And therefore if a Peer of the Realm be arraigned at the Suit of the King upon any Indictment of Murther he shall be tried by his Peeres that is Nobles But if he be appealed of Murther by a Subject his triall shall be by an ordinarie Jury of 12 Free-holders as appeareth in 10. Edw. 4. It is said such is the meaning of Magna Charta By the same reason therefore as per judicium parium suorum extends to the Kings Suit so shall these words per legem terrae And in 8. E. 2. Rot. Parliam num 7. there is a Petition that a Writ made under the Privie Seal went to the Guardians of the Great Seal to cause lands to be seized into the Kings hands by force of which there went a Writ out of the Chauncery to the Exchequer to seize against the forme of the Grand Charter That the King or his Ministers shall out-law no man of Free-hold without reasonable Judgement And the partie was restored to his land Which sheweth the Statute did extend to the King There was no invasion upon this personall liberty till the time of King Edw. the 3. which was soon restrained by the Subject For in the 5. E. 3. cap. 9. it is ordained in these words It is enacted that no man from henceforth shall be attached by any accusation nor forejudged of life or limbe nor his lands tenements goods nor cattells seized into the Kings hands against the forme of the great Charter And the Law of the Land 25. E. 3. cap. 4. is more full and doth expound the words of the Grand Charter and it is thus Whereas it is contained in the great Charter of the Franchises of England That no Free-man be imprisoned or put out of his Free-hold nor of his Franchise nor Free Custome unlesse it be by the Law of the Land it is accorded assented and established that from henceforth none shall be taken by petition or suggestion made unto our Lord the King or to his Councell unlesse it be by indictment or presentment of his good and lawfull people of the same neighbourhood where such deeds be done in due manner or by processe made by Writ originall at the Common Law nor that none be out of his Franchises or of his Free-hold unlesse he be duely brought into answer and forejudged of the same by course of Law and if any thing be done against the same it shall be redressed and held for null Out of this Statute I observe that what in Magna Charta and the Preamble of this Statute is termed by the Law of the Land is in the body of this Act expounded to be by processe made by Writ originall at the Common Law which is a plain interpretation of the words Law of the Land in the grand Charter Andâ— I note that this Law was made upon the commitment of divers to the Tower no man yet knoweth for what The 28. E. 3. is yet more direct this Libertie being followed with fresh suite by the Subject where the words are not many but very full and significant That no man of what estate or condition he be shall be put out of his lands or Tenement nor taken nor imprisoned nor disinherited nor put to death without he be brought into answer by due processe of the Law Here your Lordships see the usuall words of the Law of the Land are rendered by due processe of the Law 36. E. 3. Rot. Parliam num 9. amongst the Petitions of the Commons one of them being translated into English out of the French is thus First that the great Charter and the Charter of the Forrest and the other Statutes made in his time and the time of his Progenitours for the profit of him and his Commonaltie be well and firmly kept and put in due execution without putting disturbance or making arrest contrarie to them by speciall command or in any other The answer to the Petition which makes it an Act of Parliament is Our Lord the King by the assent of the Prelates Dukes Earles Barons and the Commonaltie hath ordained and established that the said Charters and Statutes be held and put in execution according to the said Petition which is that no arrest should be made contrarie to the Statutes by speciall command This concludes the Question and is of as great force as if it were printed For the Parliament Roll is the true warrant of an Act and many are omitted out of the books that are extant 36. E. 3. Rot. Parliament num 20. explaineth it further for there the Petition is Whereas it is contained in the Grand Charter and other Statutes that none be taken or imprisoned by speciall command without indictment or other due processe to be made by the Law yet oftentimes it hath been and still is that many are hindred taken and imprisoned without indictment or other processe made by the Law upon them as well of things done out of the Forrest of the King as for other things That it would therefore please our said Lord to command those to be delivered which are so taken by speciall Command against the forme of the Charters and Statutes aforesaid The answer is The King is pleased if any man find himself grieved that he come and make his complaint and right shall be done unto him 37. E. 3. cap. 18. agreeth in substance when it saith Though that it be contained in the great Charter that no man be imprisoned nor put out of his Freehold without processe of the Law neverthelesse divers people make false suggestions to the King himself as well for malice as otherwise whereat the King is often grievâ—d and divers of the Realme put in damage against the forme of the said Charter Wherefore it is ordained that all they which make such suggestions be sent with the suggestions before the Chauncellour Treasurer and the
the partie could not be delivered To this the Answer is plain 1. No opinion is delivered in that book whether he were delivered or bailed or not 2. It appeares expresly that he was brought thither to be charged in an accusation of debt at another mans Suit and no desire of his own to be delivered or bailed and then if he were remanded it is no way materiall to the question in hand But that which is most relied upon is the opinion of Stamford in his book of the Pleas of the Crown lib. 2. ca. 18. fol. 72. 73. in his cap. of Mainprize where he reciteth the Statute of Westm. 1. cap. 15. and then saith thus By this Statute it appeareth that in 4 cases at the Common Law a man was not replevisable to wit those that were taken for the death of a man by command of the King or of his Justices or for the Forrest Thus farre he is most right Then he goeth on and saith As to the Command of the King that is understood of the command of his own mouth or his Councell which is incorporated unto him and speake with his mouth or otherwise every writ of Capias to take a man which is the Kings command would be as much And as to the command of the Justices that is meant their absolute command for if it be their ordinarie commandment he is replevisable by the Sheriff if it be not in some of the Cases prohibited by the Statute The answer that I give unto this is That Stamford hath said nothing whether a man may be committed without cause by the Kings command or whether the Judges ought not to baile him in such case but only that such a one is not replevisable which is agreed for that belongs to the Sheriff And because no man should think he meant any such thing he concludes his whole sentence touching the command of the King and his Justices That one committed by the Justices ordinarie command is replevisable by the Sheriff So either he meant all by the Sheriff or at least it appeares not that he meant that a man committed by the King or the Privie Councell without cause is not bailable by the Justices and then he hath given no opinion in this case What he would have said if he had been asked the question cannot be known neither doth it appeare by any thing he hath said that he meant any such thing as would be inferred out of him And now my Lords I have performed the command of the Commons and as I conceive shall leave their declaration of personall Liberty on ancient and undoubted truth fortified with 7 Acts of Parliament and not opposed by any Statute or authoritie of Law whatsoever The Objections of the King's Councell with the Answers made thereunto at the two Conferences touching the same matter IT was agreed by Master Attorney generall that the seven Statutes urged by 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 vi termini 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 legem 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 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 Manerio Archipiscopi Ebor Anno Regni Domini Regis Edw. vicessimo primo inter alia sic 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 vice com per Dominum Regem fuissent assignati and Goalas Domini Regis deliberandum eidem vic quendam W. de Petling per quâ—ndam Appellatorem ante adventum eorundam Justic. ibidem appellatum captum vivente ipso appellatore usque diem deliberationis coram eis facte demisit per plevinam contra formam statuti c. Et etiam quendam Radulphum de Cokehall qui de morte hominis indictatus fuit per eundem vicecom captus Idem vicecomes per plevinam dimisit contra formam statuti etiam eundem Radulphum â—ine ferris coram eisdem Justitiariis ad deliberationem predictam produxit contra consuetudinem Regni simile quendam Will. filium Walteri le Persone qui per preceptum Com. War captus fuit dimisit per plevinam contra voluntatem preceptum Domini Regis Cum idem Dominus Rex sub Litteras suas sub privato â—igillo suo eidem vic praecepit quod nulli per praeceptum praedicti Com. Warr. capt aliquam gratiam faciat c. Et super hoc praefatus Iohannes Botetourt qui presens est qui fuit primus Justic. predicorum premissa recordatur Et praedictus vicecomes dicit quo ad praedictum Will. de Petlings quod ipse nunquam à tempore captionis ipsius Will. per praedictum appellatorem demissus fuit per plevinam aliquam ante adventum praedictorum Justitiariorum Imo dicit quod per dimidium anni ante adventum eorum Justic. captus fuit semper detentus in prisona absque plevina aliqua quousque coram eisdem damnatus fuit quo ad praedictum Radulphum bene cognoscit quod ipse dimisit eum per plevinam hoc benefacere potuit ratione authoritate officii sui eo quod captus fuit pro quodam simplici transgressione non pro aliqua felonia pro qua replegiari non potuit quo ad tertium viz. Will. filium Persone bene cognoscit quod ipse captus fuit per praeceptum praedicti Com. Warr. quod dimisit eum per plevinam sed dicit quod hoc fecit ad rogatum quorundam de hospitio curia Domini Regis c. qui eum inde specialiter rogaverunt per literas suas super hoc idem Vic. quaesitus per Dominum Regem quis eum rogavit literas suas ei direxit ubi litera ille sunt dicit quod Walterius de langton eum per literas suas inde rogavit sed dicit quod breve ille sunt in partibus suis Leic. super hoc idem Vic. profert quoddam breve Domini Regis de Privato Sigillo eidem vicecomiti directum quod testatur quod dominus Rex ipsi vicecomiti praecepit quod omnes illos transgressiones contra pacem de quibus Com. Warr. ei scire facerit caperet salvo custodierit absque aliqua gratia eis faciend quia praedictus Justitiar expresse recordatur quod ipse socii sui per bonu Legal inquisitionem de militibus aliis hominibus coram eis fact invenerunt quod predictus Willielmus de Petlings demissus fuit per plevinam per magnum tempus ante adventum corundam per vicecomite praedicto etiam quia predictus vic cognoscit quod praedictus Radulphus demissus fuit per plevinam per ipsum vic hoc dicit quod benefacere potuit eo quod captus fuit pro levi Transgressione per Record ejusdem Justitiarium compertum est quod captus fuit pro morte hominis quod est contrarium dicto praedict vic similiter quod idem vic cognovit quod recepit literam Domini Regis per quam Rex ei praecepit quod nullam gratiam fecerit illis quae capti fuerunt per praeceptum praedicti Comitatis eidem vic contra praeceptum illud dimissit praedictum Will. filium Walteri per plevinam qui captus fuit per praeceptum praedicti Comitatis prout idem vic fatetur sic tum ratione istiâ—s transgressione quam aliorum praedictorum incidit in poenam statuti Const. est quod praedictus vic committitur prisonae juxta formam statuti c. Ex Rotulo Parliament de Anno
been made and that in this very point only upon the interpretation and apprehension of Presidents But Presidents my Lords are good media or proofs of illustration or confirmation when they agree with the expresse Law but they can never be proof enough to overthrow any one Law much lesse seven severall Acts of Parliament as the number of them is for this point The House of Commons therefore taking into consideration that in this Question being of so high a nature that never any exceeded it in any Court of Justice whatsoever all the severall wayes of just examination of the truth should be used have also most carefully informed themselves of all former Judgements or Presidents concerning this great point either way and have been no lesse carefull of the due preservation of his Majesties just Prerogative then of their own Rights The Presidents here are of two kinds either meerly matter of Record or else the former resolutions of Judges after solemn debate in the point This part that concernes the Presidents the House of Commons have commanded me to present to your Lordships which I shall as briefly as I may so I shall do it also faithfully and perspicuously To that end my Lords before I come to the particulars of any of these Presidents I shall first remember to your Lordships that which serves as a generall key for the opening and true apprehension of all them of Record without which key no man unlesse he be verst in the Entries and Court of the King's Bench can possibly understand them In all cases my Lords where any right or Liberty belongs to the Subject by any positive Law written or unwritten if there were not also a remedy by Law for the enjoying or regaining of this right or Libertie when it is violated or taken from him the positive Law were in vain and to no purpose were it for any man to have right in any land or other Inheritance if there were not a known remedy that is an Action or Writ by which in so me court of ordinary Justice he might recover it And in this case of right of Liberty of the Person if there were not a remedy in the Law for regaining it when it is restrained it were to no purpose to speak of Lawes that ordain it should not be restrained Therefore in this case also I shall first observe the remedy that every Free-man is to use for the regaining of his Liberty when he is against Law imprisoned that so upon the legall course and form to be held in using that remedy the Presidents or Judgements upon it for all Presidents of Record rise out of this Remedy may be easily understood There are in the the Law divers remedies for enlargement of a Freeman imprisoned as the Writs of odio atia and of homine replegiando besides the common and most known Writ of habeas Corpus or Corpus cum causa 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 consider aver it 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 Commiâ—titur 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 anone 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 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 prosecuritate pacis at the Suit of one Brinton ac pro suspicione fellonie committed by him at Cow all in Glocester shire ac per mandatum Dni Regis he is committed to the Marshall of the Kings Bench posâ—ea isto eodem Terminâ— 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 â—ailable 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 fellâ—nie ac pro aliiâ— caâ—sis illos movantibus Qui committitur Marescallo c. et immediate ex gratiâ— 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
all Lawes First generall reason The first generall reason is drawn à re ipsa from imprisonment ex visceribus causâ— be it close or other imprisonment which is divided into three parts First No man can be imprisoned at the will and pleasure of any but he that is bond and a villain for that imprisonment at will Et Tayler lâ—g haut et base are propria quarto modo to villaines Vide the writ de nativo habendo Secoâ—d 7. E. 3. fo 50. in the new print and 348 in the old 33. E. 3. tit Dom. 253. â—infant inpris â—itz Herbers fait un note de Ceo. But if Free-men of England might be imprisoned at the will and pleasure of the King by his Command then were they in worse case then bondmen and villaines for the Lord of a villain cannot command another to imprison his villain without cause as of disobedience or refusing toserve as is agreed in our books Third Imprisonment is accounted in Law civil death perdit domum familiam vicinos patriam his house his family his wife his children his neighbours his countrey and to live among wretched and wicked men If a man be threatned to be killed 39. H. 1. 65. c. he may avoid a Feoffment of lands gifts of goods c. so it is if he be threatned to be imprisoned he should do the like for that it is civill death Second generall reason The second generall reason is à minore ad majus minima poena corporalis est major qualibet pecuniaria But the King himself cannot impose a fyne upon any man but it must be done judicially by his Judges Bracton fol. 105. it is called duritia imprisonment 2 R. 3. 11. per Iusticiarios in Curia non per Regem in Camera and so it hath been resolved by all the Judges of England Third generall reason The third generall reason is drawn from the number and diversity of remedies which the Law giveth against imprisonment viz. breve de hoâ—ine replegiando de odio acia de habeas Corpus an appeal of imprisonment breve de manuâ—aptione The latter two of these are antiquated but the writ de odio acia is revived for that was given by the statute of Magna Charta ca. 26. and therefore though it were repealed by the statute of 28. E. 3. yet it is revived 42. E. 3. ca. 1. by which it is provided that all statutes made against Magna Charta are void Videw 2. ca. 29. Now the law would never have given so many remedies if the Free-men of England might be imprisoned at free will and pleasure Fourth generall reason The fourth generall reason is drawn from the extent and universality of the pretended power to imprison for it should extend not only to the Commons of the Realm and their posterity but also to the Nobles and their honourable Progenies to the Bishops and Clergie and their successours to all persons of what condition or sex or age soever to all Judges Officers c. whose attendance are necessary c. without exception of any person Fifth generall reason The fifth is drawn from the indefinitnesse of time the pretended power being limited to no time may be perpetuall during life Sixth generall reason The sixth à damno dedecore from the losse and dishonour of the English Nation in 2 respects First for their valour and prowesse so famous through the whole world Secondly for their industry for who indeavours to apply himself in any profession either of warre liberall science or merchandise c. if he be but Tennant at will of his Liberty And no Tennant at will will support or improve any thing because he hath no certain estâ—â—â— And thus it should be both dedecus and damnum to the English Nation and it should be no honour to the King to be King of slaves Seventh generall reason The seventh is drawn ab utili inutili for that it appeareth by the statute of 36. E. 3. That the execution of the statute of Magna Charta 5. E. 3. 25. E. 3. are adjudged in Parliament to be for the profit of the King and of his people Rot. Parl. â—6 E. 3. num 9. 20. And therefore this pretended power being against the profit of the King and of his people can be no more part of this prerogative Eighth generall reason 1. E. 2. de frâ—ngprison â—â—at unt pasche 18. E. 3. rot 33. coram Rege Bildestons case rot Parl. 28. H. 6. nu 16. Acts Apost cap. 25. v. the last The eighth generall reason is for it is safe for the King to expresse the cause of the commitment and dangerous for him to omit it for if any be committed without expressing the cause though he escape albeit the truth be it were for treason or felony yet the escape is neither felony nor treason But if the cause be expressed to be for suspition of treason or felony then the escapealbeit he be innocent is treason or felony Ninth generall reason The ninth generall reason is drawn from the authorities 16. H. 6. tit Monstrans â—efaits â—82 by the whole Court the King in his presence cannot command one to be arrested but an action of false imprisonment lieth against him that arresteth 22. H. 6. 46. Newton 1. H. 7. 4. the opinion of Markham Chief Justice to E 4. and the reason because the party hath no remedy Fortescue cap. 18. proprio ore nullus Regum usus est â— to commit any man c. 4 Eliz. Plowd Com. 236. the common Common Law hath so admeasured the Kings prerogative as he cannot prejudice any man in his inheritance and the greatest inheritance a man hath is the Liberty of his person for all other are necessary to it Major hâ—reditas venit unicuique nostrum à jure legibus quam à parentibus 25. E. 1. ca. 2. Confirm Cart. all judgements given against Magna Charta are void Objections Upon Conference with the Lords the objections were made by the Kings Attorney First object That these resolutions of the House were incompatible with a Monarchy that must govern by the state Bracton Answ. Whereunto it was answered that nibiltam proprium est imperii quam legibus vivere And again Attribuat Râ—x legi quodlex attribuat c. viz. dominationem imperium quia sine lege non potest esse Rex It can be no more prejudice to the King by reason of matter of state for if it be for suspition of treason misprision of treason or felony it may be by generall words expressed viz. pro suspitione proditionis 2 object To blind those that are committed one cause must be pretended and another intended especially when it toucheth matter of state Answ. Whereunto it was answered that all dissimulation especially in the course of Justice was to be avoided and soundnesse of truth to take place and therefore David that was both a King and
Lord as this writ de odio acia was before this statute so it was afterwards taken away by the statute of 28 Ed. 3. cap. 9. But before that sttatute this writ did lie in the speciall Case as is shâ—wn in Brooks 9 th Reports Powlters Case and the end of this writ was that the Subject might not be too long detained in prison as till the Justices of Eyre discharged them so that the Law intended not that a man should suffer perpetuall imprisonment for they were very carefull that men should not be kept too long in prison which is also a Liberty of the Subject and my Lord that this Court hath bailed upon a suspicion of high treason I will offer it to your Lordship when I shall shew you presidents in these cases of a commitment by the Privy Councell or by the King himself But before I offer these presidents unto your Lordship of which there be many I shall by your Lordships favour speak a little to the next exception and that is the matter of the return which I find to be per speciale mandatum domini Regis 8. and what is that it is by this writ there may be sundry commands by the King we find a speciall command often in our Books as in the statute of Marlborough cap. 8. they were imprisoned Rediss shall not be delivered without the speciall command of our Lord the King and so in Bracton De Actionibus the last chapter where it appears that the Kings commandment for imprisonments is by speciall writ so by writ again men are to be delivered for in the case of Rediss ' or Post Rediss ' if it shall be removed by a Certiorare is by a speciall writ to deliver parties so that by this appears that by the Kings commandment to imprison and to deliver in those cases is understood this writ and so it may be in this case which we have heard And this return here is a speciall Mandatum it may be understood to be under some of the Kings Seals 42 Ass. and ought to be delivered and will you make a difference between the Kings command under his seal and his command by word of mouth what difference there is I leave it to your Lordships judgement but if there be any it is the more materiall that it should be expressed what manner of command it was which doth not here appear and therefore it may be the Kings command by writ or his command under his Seal or his command by word of mouth alone And if of an higher nature there is none of these commands then the other doubtlesse it is that by writ or under seal for they are of record and in these the person may be bailed and why not in this As to the legall forme admitting there were substances in the return yet there wants legall form for the writ of Habeas Corpus is the commandment of the King to the Keeper of the prisons and thereupon they are to make return both of the body and of the cause of the commitment and that cause is to appear of them who are the immediate Officers And if he doth it by signification from another that return is defective in Law and therefore this return cannot be good for it must be from the Officer himself and if the cause returned by him be good it bindes the prisoners The warrant of the Lords was but a direction for him he might have made his return to have been expresly by the Kings commandment there was a warrant for it I shall not need to put you cases of it for it is not enough that he returns that he was certified that the commitment was by the Kings command but he must of himself return this fact as it was done And now my Lord I shall offer to your Lordship presidents of divers kindes upon commitments by the Lords of the Privy Councel upon commitments by the speciall command of the King and upon commitments both by the King the Lords together And howsoever I conceive which I submit to your Lordship that our case will not stand upon presidents but upon the fundamentall Laws and Statutes of this Realm and though the presidents look the one way or the other they are to be brought back unto the Laws by which the Kingdome is governed In the first of Henry the eighth Rot. Parl. one Harison was committed to the Marshalsey by the command of the King and being removed by Habeas Corpus into the Court the cause returned was that he was committed per mandatum Domini Regis and he was bailed In the fortieth of Elizabeth Thomas Wendon was committed to the Gatehouse by the commandment of the Queen and Lords of the Councell and being removed by an Habeas Corpus upon the generall return and he was bailed In 8 Iacobi one Caesar was committed by the Kings commandment and this being returned upon his Habeas Corpus upon the examination of this case it doth appear that it was over-ruled that the return should be amended or else the prisoner should be delivered The presidents concerning the commitment by the Lords of the Councell are in effect the same with these where the commitment is by the reason why the cause of the commitment should not be shewn holds in both cases and that is the necessity of suit and therefore Master Stamford makes the command of the King and that of the Lords of the Privy Councell to be both as one and to this purpose if they speak he speaks and if he speaks they speak The presidents that we can shew you how the Subject hath been delivered upon commitment by the Lords of the Councell as in the time of Henry the eight as in the times of Queen Elizabeth Queen Mary are infinite as in the ninth of Elizabeth Thomas Lawrence was committed to the Towre by the Lords of the Councell and bailed upon an Habeas Corpus In the 43 of Elizabeth Calvins case In the third of Elizabeth Vernons case These were committed for high treason and yet bailed for in all these cases there must be a conviction in due time or a deliverance by Law There be divers other presidents that might be shewn to your Lordship In 12 Iacobi Miles Renards In 12 Iacobi Rot. 155. Richard Beckwiths case In 4 Iacobi Sir Thomas Monson was committed for treason to the Towre of London and afterwards was brought hither and bailed and since our case stands upon this return and yet there is no sufficient cause in Law expressed in the return of the detaining this Gentleman and since these presidents do warrant our proceedings my humble suit unto this Court is that the Gentleman Sir Iohn Henningham who hath petitioned his Majesty that he may have the benefit of the Law and his Majesty hath signified it it is his pleasure that justice according to the Law should be administred at all times in generall to all his Subjects and particularly to
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 c 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 ' parat ' 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 4 of November then there is an Alias habeas bears Teste after that and the tenour thereof is a command to the Warden of the Fleet quod habeas corpus Walteri Earl coram nobis ad subjiciendum recipiendum ea quae curia nostra de eo c. ordin ' conting And the Warden of the Fleet he certifies as your Lordship have heard May it please your Lordship I desire as before was desired for the other Gentlemen that Sir Walter Earl may be also bailed if there be no other cause of his imprisonment for if there were a cause certified and that cause were not sufficient to detain him still in prison your Lordship would bail him and if a man should be in worse case when there is no cause certified at all that was very hard The writ is that he should bring the prisoner coram nobis before the King the end of that is ad subjiciendum recipiendum now I conceive that though there be a signification of the Kings pleasure to have this Gentleman imprisoned yet when the King grants this writ to bring the prisoner hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum his pleasure likewise is to have the prisoner let go if by Law he be not chargeable or otherwise to detain him still in prison if the case so require it I will put your Lordship in mind of a case and it was Pasch. 9. Ed. 3. M. 3. I will cite by the placita because my Book is not paged as other Books are it is in the case of a Cessavit In that case there were two things considerable the one that there was a signification of the Kings pleasure past and that determined with him the other that though there was a signification of the Kings pleasure before which was yet there comes after that a writ and that was another signification of the Kings pleasure that the prisoner should be brought hither ad subjiciendum to submit himself to punishment if he have deserved it or ad recipiendum to receive his enlargement and be delivered if there be no cause of his imprisonment And if upon an Habeas corpus a cause of commitment be certified that cause is to be tried here before your Lordship But if no cause be shewn then the proceedings must be ut curia nostra ad mar ' contigerit the Court must do that which stands with Law and Justice and that is to deliver him My Lord I shall be bold to move one word more touching this return I conceive that every Officer to a Court of Justice must make his return of his own act or of the act of another and not what he is certified of by another But in this case the Warden of the Fleet doth not certifie himself of himself that this Gentleman was commanded to him by the King but that he was certified by the Lords of the Councill that it was the Kings pleasure that he should detain him But in our case the Warden of the Fleet must certifie the immediate cause and not the cause of the cause as it doth by this return Detentus est sub custodia mea per speciale mandatum Domini Regis mihi significatum per Warrantum duorum de Privato Concilio that is not the use in Law but he ought to return the primary cause and not the subsequent cause as in 32 Edw. 3. return Rex vicecom ' 87. in a writ De homine replegiando against an Abbot the Sheriffe returns that he hath sent to the Bayliffe of the Abbot and he answered him that the party was the Abbots villain and so he cannot deliver him that is held an insufficient return and a new Alias was granted but if the Sheriffe had returned that the Abbot did certifie him so it had been good but he must not return what is certified him by another In one of the presidents that hath been noted as that of Parker 22 Hen. 8. there the Guardian of the prison certifies that
Parker detentus est sub custodia mea per mandatum Domini Regis mihi nunciatum per Robertum Pecke now our case is by the Nunciation of many but in Law majus minus non variant in spetione the certification of one and of many is of the same effect although in morall understanding there may be a difference Trin. 2. Ed. 3. Rot. 46. in this Court in 21 Ed. 3. in the printed Book there is a piece of it The Abbot of Burey brings a prohibition out of this Court the Bishop of Norwich pleadeth in Barre of that Quod mihi testificatū quod continetur in Archivis that he is excommunicated there were two exceptions taken to this case in this president and they are both in one case the first was that no case appeareth why he was excommunicated there may be causes why he should be excommunicated and then he should be barred and there may be causes why the excommunication should not barre him for it may be the excomunication was for bringing the action which was the Kings writ and therefore because there was no cause of the excommunication returned it was ruled that it was not good The other reason is that upon the Roll which is mihi testificatum Now every man when he will make a certificate to the Court Proprium factum suum non alterius significare debet he must inform the Court of the immediate act done and not that such things are told him or that such things are signified unto him but that was not done in this case and therefore it was held insufficient and so in this case of ours I conceive the return is insufficient in the form there is another cause my Lord for which I conceive this return is not good But first I will be bold to inform your Lordship touching the Statute of Magna Charta 29. Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur c. ne◠super eum mittimus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae That in this Statute these words in Carcerem are omitted out of the printed Books for it should be nec eum in Carcerem mittimus For these words per legem terrae what Lex terrae should be I will not take upon me to expound otherwise then I finde them to be expounded by Acts of Parliament and this is that they are understood to be the processe of the Law sometimes by writ sometimes by attachment of the person but whether speciale mandatum Domini Regis be intended by that or no I leave it to your Lordships exposition upon two petitions of the Commons and answer of the King in 36 Ed. 3. n o 9. and n o 20. In the first of them the Commons complain that the great Charter the Charter of the Forrest and other Statutes were broken and they desire that for the good of himself and of his people they might be kept and put in execution and that they might not be infringed by making an arrest by speciall command or otherwise and the answer was that the assent of the Lords established and ordained that the said Charter and other Statutes should be put in execution according to the petitition and that is without any disturbance by arrest by speciall command or otherwise for it was granted as it was petitioned In the same year for they were very carefull of this matter and it was necessary it should be so for it was then an usuall thing to take men by writs quibusdam de causis and many of these words caused many Acts of Parliament and it may be some of these writs may be shewn and I say in the same year they complained that men were imprisoned by speciall command and without indictment or other legall course of Law and they desired that thing may not be done upon men by speciall command against the great Charter The King makes answer that he is well pleased therewith that was the first answer and for the future he hath added farther if any man be grieved let him complain and right shall be done unto him This my Lord is an explanation of the great Charter as also the Statute of 37 Ed. 3. ch 18. is a commentary upon it that men should not be committed upon suggestion made to the King without due proofs of Law against them and so it is enacted twice in one year We find more printed Books as in Henry the sixth Minus de fiacts Fitz. 182. which is a strong case under favour in an action of Trespasse for cutting down trees the defendant saith that the place where the trees are cut is parcell of the Manor of B whereof the King is seised in fee and that the King did command him to cut them and the opinion of the Court was that this was no good plea without shewing the specialty of the command and they said if the King command me to arrest a man and I arrest him he shall have an action of false imprisonment against me although it were done in the Kings presence In 1 Ioh. cap. 7. fol. 46. it is in print and there we leave it Hussey Chief Justice saith that Sir Iohn Markham told King Edward the fourth that he could not arrest a man upon suspition of felony or treason as any of his Subjects might because if he should wrong a man by such arrest the parties could have no remedy against him if any man shall stand upon it here is a signification of the Kings pleasure not to have the cause of the commitment examined he hath here another signification of his pleasure by writ whereby the party is brought hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum that he hath made your Lordship Judge of that that should be objected against this Gentleman and either to punish him or to deliver him and if here be no cause shewn it is to be intended that the party is to be delivered and that it is the Kings pleasure it should be so and the writ is a sufficient warrant for the doing of it there being no cause shewn of the imprisonment and now my Lord I will speak a word to the writ of de homine replegiando and no other writ for that was the common writ and the four causes expressed in that Statue to wit the death of a man the command of the King or his Justices or Forrest were excepted in that writ before that Statute made as appears Bracton 133. so that the writ was at the Common Law before that Statute And it appears by our Books that if a man be brought hither by an Habeas corpus though he were imprisoned De morte hominis as in the 21 of Edward the fourth 7. Winkfield was bailed here this Court bailed him for he was brought hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum and not to lie in prison God knows how long and if the Statute should be expounded otherwise there were no bailing men outlawed or breakers of prisons
for they are not within this Statute and yet this Court doth it at pleasure But plainly by the Statute it self it appears that it meant only to the common writ for the preamble recites that the Sheriffs and other have taken and kept in prison persons detected of felony and let out to plevin such as were not reprisable to grieve the one party and to the gain of the other and forasmuch as before this time it was not determined what prisoners were reprisable which not but onely in certain cases were expressed therefore it is ordained c. Now this is no more but for direction of the keepers of the prisons for it leaves the matter to the discretion of the Judges whether bailable or no not of the Judges for when the Statute hath declared who are repleviable who are not as men outlawed have abjured the Realm Proves such as be taken in the manner breakers of prisons buâ—ners of houses makers of false money counter feiting of the Kings Seal and the like it is then ordained that if the Sheriff or any other let any go at large by surety that is not reprisable if he be Sheriff Constable or any other that hath the keeping of prisons and thereof be attainted he shall lose his office and fee for ever so that it extends to the common Goalers and keepers of prisons to direct them in what cases they shall let men to bail and in what cases not and that they shall not be Judges to whom to let to replevin and whom to keep in prison but it extends not to the Judges for if the makers of the Statute had meant them in it they should have put a pain upon them also So then I conclude upon these under your Lordships favour that as this case is there should have been a cause of the commitment expressed for these Gentlemen are brought hither by writ ad subjiciendum if they be charged and ad recipiendum if they be not charged and therefore in regard there is no charge against them whereupon they should be detained in prison any longer we desire that they may be bailed or discharged by your Lordship The Argument of Master Selden upon the Habeas corpus My Lords I am of Councell with Sir Edmond Hampden his case is the same with the other two Gentlemen I cannot hope to say much after that that hath been said yet if it shall please your Lordship I shall remember you of so much as is befallen my lot Sir Edmond Hampden is brought hither by a writ of Habeas corpus and the keeper of the Gate-house hath returned upon the writ that Sir Edmond Hampden is detained in prison per speciale mandatum Domini Regis mihi significatum per Warrantum duorum Privati Concilii dicti domini Regis and then he recites the warrants of the Lords of the Councell which is that they do will and require him to detain this Gentleman still in prison letting him know that his first imprisonment c. May it 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
deliberari non debeat Rex Iusticiar suis de Banco salut Cum nos nuper ad significationem S. de Isle c. usque ibi excommunicat extitisse nec se velle c. esset satisfactum ex parte ipsius N. virtute mandati nostri praed capt in Prisona nostra de Newgate tunc detenti c. nolentes eo praetextu praefato N. per breve nostrum praed via praecludat quo minus appellac suae negotium c. processerat appellant statut c. per breve nostrum praeceperimus praefat vic quod scire facerent c. signific consult circumspect in Placitis per breve praedict coram vobis pendentibus procedere valeatis secundum legem consuetudinem Regni nostri Stamf. 72. 5. E. 3. c. 8. 1 E. c. 3. 9. saith that every Capias in a personall action is a Commandment of the King for it is Praecipimus tibi quod capias c. and yet the defendant as there it is said is replevisable by the Common Law 7 R. 20. a. Calvins case saith that there are two kind of writs viz. brevia mandatoria remedialia brevia mandatoria non remdeialia breuia mandatoria remedialia are writs of Right Formedon c. debts trespasses and shortly all writs reall and personall whereby the party wronged is to recover somewhat and to be remedied for that wrong which is done unto him Sixthly I do finde by our books of Law and by the Register that this speciall mandatum domini Regis is expounded to be his writ and that the Law taketh no notice of any other speciale mandatum then by this writ the which being so when the return is made that he is imprisoned and detained in prison by the speciall commandment of the King how can the Court adjudge upon this return that Sir Iohn Corbet ought to be kept in prison and not to be bailed when the nature of the speciall commandment is not set forth in the return whereby it may appear unto the Court that he is not bailable In Bracton c. 12. 112. you shall see a writ reciting Praecipimus tibi quod non implacites nec implacitari permittas talem de libero tenemento suo in tali villa sine speciali praecepto nostro vel Capitalis Iusticiar ' nostri And the reason of it there is given quia nemo de libero tenemento sine brevi sive libello conventionali nist gratis voluerit respondebit So as the exception of speciall commandment by the very book appeareth to be breve sive libellus conventionalis Regist. 271. the writ of Manucaption goeth in this manner Rex vic Salut Cum nuper assignaverimus dilectos fideles nostros A. B. C. D. ad inquisitiones de forstallariis transgressionibus contra formam statuti dudum apud Winton editi in com tuo faciend ad illos quos inde culpabiles invenirent capiend in Prisona nostra salvo custod faciend donec aliud inde praecepissemus quod C. D. E. pro hujusmodi forstallamentis transgressionibus unde coram praefat A. B. C. indict fuerint capt in Prisona de L. detent exist à qua delibera ri non possunt sine mandato nostro speciali Nos volentes eisdem C. D. E. graciam in hac parte facere specialem tibi praecipimus quod si praedict C. D. E. occasione praedict non a lia in Prisona praedict detineantur pro transgressionibus illis secundum legem consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae replegiabiles existunt c. tunc impos C. D. E. à Prisona praedict si ea occasione non alia detineantur in eadem interim deliberari facias per manucapt supradict habeas ibi tunc coram praefat Iusticiar nomina manncapt illorum hoc breve And the exposition of this speciale mandatum domini Regis mentioned in the writ is expounded to be breue domini Regis and thereupon is this writ directed unto the Sheriffe for the delivery of them And so for the branch of the first part I conclude that the speciall command of the King without shewing the nature of the commandment of the Kings is too generall and therefore insufficient for he ought to have returned the nature of the commandment of the King whereby the Court might have adjudged upon it whether it were such a commandment that the imprisonment of Sir Iohn Corbet be lawfull or not and whether it were such a commandment of the King that although the imprisonment were lawfull at the first yet he might be bailed by Law And as for the generall return of speciale mandatum domini Regis without shewing the cause of the imprisonment either speciall or generall I hold that for that cause also the return is insufficient First in regard of the Habeas corpus which is the commandment of the King onely made the 15 of November According to the Teste of the writ commanding the keeper of the Gatehouse to have the body of Sir Iohn Corbet una cum causa detensionis ad subjiciendum recipiendum ea quae curia nostra de eo ad tunc ibid. ordinar contingat So as the commandment of the writ being to shew the cause of his detaining in prison the keeper of the gatehouse doth not give a full answer unto the writ unlesse the cause of the detainment in prison be returned and the Court doth not know how to giue their judgement upon him either for his imprisonment or for his discharge according to the purport of the writ when there is not a cause returned and forasmuch as upon an excommengement certified it hath been adjudged oftentimes that Certificates were insufficient where the cause of the commitment hath not been certified that the Court might adjudge whether the Ecclesiasticall Judges who pronounced the excommunication had power over the original cause according to the book of 14 Hen. 4. 14. 8. Rep. 68. Trollops case 20 Ed. 3. Excommengement 9. So upon an Habeas corpus in this Court where a man hath been committed by the Chancellour of England by the Councell of England Marches of Wales Warden of the Stanneries High Commission Admiralty Dutchy Court of request Commission of Sewers or Bankrupts it hath severall times been adjudged that the return was insufficient where the particular cause of imprisonment hath not been shewen to the intent that it might appear that those that committed him had jurisdiction over the cause otherwise he ought to be discharged by the Law and I spare to recite particular causes in every kind of these because there are so many presidents of them in severall ages of every King of this Realm and it is an infallible maxime of the Law That as the Court of the Kings Bench and Judges ought not to deny an Habeas corpus unto any prisoner that shall demand the same by whomsoever he be committed so ought the
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 E d. 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 〈◊〉 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 particular 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 cum 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 Bâ—â—stone 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
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 generall 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 M r. 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 M r. 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 by 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 he could produce none at all but he said he thought the Testimony of it was burnt among many other things of the Councel-table at the burning of the banquetting house To the 9. being Harecourts Case H. 40. Eliz. Rot. 62. the self same Objection was made by him but no warrant was shewed to maintain his Objection To the 10. which is Catesbyes Case in vacatione Hill 43. Eliz. he said that it was by direction of a privy Seal from the Queen and to that purpose he shewed the Seal of 43. Eliz. which is at large among the Transcripts of the Records concerning bails taken in Cases where the King or the Lords assented But it was replied that the privy seal made onely for some particular Gentlemen mentioned in it and for none other as indeed appears in it and then he said that it was likely that Catesby here had a privy seal in his behalf because those other had so which was all the force of his Objection To the 11. of these which is Beckwiths Case in Hill 12. Iacobi Rot. 153. he said that the Lords of the councel sent a letter to the Court of Kings-Bench to bail him And indeed he produced a letter which could not by any means be found when the Arguments were made at the first conference and this letter and a coppy of an obscure Report made by a young student which was brought to another purpose as is hereafter shewed were the onely things written of any kinde that M r. Attorney produced besides the particulars shewed by the house of Commons at the first conference To this it was replied that the letter was of no moment being onely a direction to the Chief Iustice and no Matter of record nor any way concerning the rest of the Iudges And besides either the Prisoner was bailable by the Law or not bailable if bailable by the Law then was he to be bailed without any such letter if not bailable by the Law then plainly the Judges could not have bailed him upon the letter without breach of their oath which is that they are to do Iustice according to the Law without having respect to any command whatsoever so that letter in this Case or the like in any other Case is for point of Law to no purpose nor hath any weight at all by way of Objection against what the Record and the Judgment of the Court shews us To the 12. and last of these which is Sir Thomas Monsons Case in the 14. Iacobi Rot. 147. the same Objection was said over by him which was mentioned and clearly answered in the Argument and that one ground which is infallible That the Iudgment upon a return is to be made onely out of what appears in the body of the return it self was again insisted upon in this Case as it was also in most of the rest And indeed that alone which is most clear Law fully satisfies almost all kinds of Objections that have been made to any of these presidents which thus rightly understood are many ample Testimonies of the Judgments of the Court of Kings-Bench touching this great point in the several ages and raignes of the several Princes under which they fell After his Objections to the 12. and the Replies and satisfactions given to those Objections he came next to those wherein the Assent of the King and privy Councel appears to have been upon the enlargment but he made not to any of those any other kinde of Objections then such as are mentioned and clearly answered as they were now again in the Argument made at the first conference And for so much as concerns Letters of assent
made fully to the maintenance of their resolution and that there was not one example or president of a Remittitur in any kinde upon this point before that of Cesars Case which is before cleared with the rest and is but of late time and of no moment against the resolution of the house of Commons And thus for so much as concerned the presidents of Record the first day of the conference desired by the Lords ended The next day they desired another conference which the house of Commons at which it pleased the Committee of both houses to hear M â— Attâ—rney again to make what Objection he would against other parts of the Arguments formerly delivered by the house of Commons He then Objected against the Acts of Parliament and against the reasons of Law and his Objections to these parts were answered as appears in the answers by order given into the house of Commons by the gentlemen that made them He Objected also upon the second day against that second kinde of presidents which are resolutions of Judges in former times and not of Records and brought also some other Testimonies of opinions of Judges in former times touching this point First for that resolution of all the Judges in England in 34. of Queen Eliz. mentioned and read in the Arguments made at the first conference he said That it was directly against the resolution of the House of Commons and observed the words of it to be in one place that Persons so committed by the King or the Councel may not be delivered by any of the Courts c. and in another that if the Cause were expressed either in generality or speciality it was sufficient and he said that the expressing of a cause in generality was to shew the Kings or Councels Command And to this purpose he read the whole words of that reâ—olution of the Judges Then he Objected also that in a report of one Ruswells Case in the Kings-bench in the 13. Iac. he found that the opinion of some Judges of that Court S r. Edward Coke being then Chief Justice and one of them was that a Prisoner committed per mandatum Domini Regis or privati Consilii without cause shewed and so returned could not be bayled because it might be matter of State or Arcanuâ— Imperii for which he stood committed And to this alâ—o he added an opinion that he found in a Journal of the House of Commons of the 13. Iac. wherein S r. Edward Coke speaking to a Bill preferred for the explanation of Magna Charta â—ouching imprisonâ—ent said in the House That a Prisoner so committed could not be enlarged by the Law because it might be Matter of State for which he was committed And among these Objectiâ—â—â— of other nature also he spake of the confidence that was shewed iâ— behalf of the House of Commons he said that it was not confidence could add any thing to the determination of the question but if it could that he had as much reason for the other side against the resolution of the House grounding himself upon the force of 〈◊〉 Objections which as he conceived had so weakned the Argument of the Commons House that notwithstanding any thing yet Objected they wereupon clear reason confident of the truth of their first resolution grounded upon so just examination and deliberation taken by them And it was observed to the Lords also that their confidence herein was of another nature and far greater weight then any confidence that could be expressed by M. Attorney or whomsoever elâ—e being of his Majesties Councel learned To which purpose the Lords were desired to take into their Memory the difference beâ—ween â—he present quality of the Gentlemen that â—pakâ— iâ— behalf of the House of Commons and of the Kings learned couâ—cel in their speaking there howsoever accidentally they were 〈…〉 of the same profession For the Kings Councel spake as 〈◊〉 perpetuâ—lly retained by Fee and if they made glosses and 〈…〉 adâ—anâ—agious Interpretations soever for their own part thâ—y did but wâ—aâ— belonged to their place and quality as M r. Attornâ—y had done But the Gentlemen that spake in behalf of the House of Commons came therâ— bound on the one side by the trust reposed in them by their Countrey that sent them and on the other bound also by an Oâ—th taken by every of them before they sit in they House to maintain aâ—d deâ—end the rights and prerogatives of the Crown So that 〈…〉 thâ— poâ—â—â— of confidence alone that of them that spake as â—â—tained Councel by perpetual Fee and might by their place being pâ—râ—itâ—ed to speak say what they would and that of them that spake as bound to nothing but truth but by such a trust and such an Oath were no way to be so compared or Counterpoised as if the one of them were of no more weight then the other And then the Objections before mentioned were also answered For that of the resolution of all the Judges of England in 34. Eliz. It was shewed plainly it agreed with the resolution of the House of Commons For although indeed it might have been expressed with more perspicuity yet the words of it as they are sufficiently shew that the meaning of it is no otherwise To that purpose besides the words of the whole frame of this resolution of the Judges as it is in the Coppy transcribed out of the Lord Chief Justice Andersons book written in his own hand which book was there offered to be shewed also in behalf of the House of Commons It was observed that the Records of the first part of it shew plainly that all the Judges of England then resolved that the Prisoners spoken of in the first part of their resolution were onely Prisoners committed with cause shewed for they onely said they might not be delivered by any of the Courts without due Trial by Law and Judgement of acquital had which shews plainly that they meant that by trial and acquital they might be delivered but it is clear that no trial or acquital can be had where is not some cause laid to their charge for which they ought to stand committed Therefore in that part of the resolution such Prisoners are onely meant as are committed without cause shewed which also the Judges in that resolution expresly thought necessary as appears in the second part of the resolution wherein they have these words If upon Return of the Habeas Corpus the cause of their commitment be certified to the Judges as it ought to be c. by which words they shew plainly that every return of a commitment is insufficient that hath not a cause shewed of it And to that which Mr. Attorney said as if the cause were sufficiently expressed in generality if the Kings Command or the Councels were expressed in it and as if that were meant in the resolution for a sufficient general cause it was answered That it was never heard of in Law that the power or
Person that committed the Prisoner was understood for the Causâ— captionis or Causâ— detentionis but onely the reason why that Power or Person committed the Prisoner as also in common speech if a man ask why and for what cause a man stands committed the answer is not that such a one committed him but his offence or some other cause is understood in the question and is to be shewed in the Answer But to say that such an one committed the Prisoner is an answer to the question who committed him and not why or for what cause he stands committed Then for that of the Coppy of the Report of 13. Iac. shewed forth by M r. Attorney it was answered That the Report it self which had been before seen and perused among many other things at a Committee made by the House was of sleight or no Authority for that it was taken by one that was at that time a young Student onely and was a Reporter in the Kings-bench and there was not any other Report to be found that agreed with it Secondly although the Reports of young Students when they take the words of Judges as they fall from their mouth at the Bench and in the Person and form as they are spoken may be of good credit Yet in this Case there was not one word so reported but in truth there being three Cases a time in the Kings-bench one Ruswell and one Allen and one Saltonstall every of which had something of like nature in it the Student having been present in the Court made up the form of one Report or Case out of all those three in his own words and so put it into his book so that there is not a word in the Report but is framed according to the Students fancie as it is written and nothing is expressed in it as it came from the mouth of the Judges otherwise then his fancie directed him Thirdly there are in the Report plain falshoods of Matter of Fact which are to be attributed either to the Judges or to the Reporter It is most likely by all reason that they proceeded from the Reporters fault but however those Matters of falshood shew sufficiently that the credit of the rest is of slight value for the purpose It is said in the Report that Harecourt being committed by the Councel was bayled in 40. Eliz. upon a privy Seal or a Letter where as there was no such thing in truth And it is said there that no such kinde of Letters are filed there in any case whatsoever That resolution of the Judges in 34. is miscited there and in 36. of Queen Eliz. and it is said there that by that resolution a Prisoner returned to be committed by the command of the Councel might not at all be delivered by the Court whereas no such thing is comprehended in that resolution But that which is of most moment is that howsoever the truth of the report were yet the opinion of the Judges being sudden without any debate had of the case is of fleight moment For in difficult points especially the gravest and most learned men living may on the sudden let fall and that without disparragement to them such opinions as they may well and ought to change upon further enquiry and examination and full debate had before them and mature deliberation taken by them Now plainly in that case of the 13. Iacob there is not so much as pretence of any debate at Bar or Bench. All that is reported to have been is reported as spoken upon the sudden and can any man take such a sudden opinion to be of value against solemne debates and mature deliberation since had of the point and all circumstances belonging to it which have within this half year been so fully examined and searched into that it may well be affirm'd that the learned'st man whatsoever that hath now considered of it hath within that time or might have learned more reason of satisfaction in it then ever before he met with Therefore the sudden opinions of any Judge to the contrary is of no value here Which also is to be said of that opinion obviously delivered in the Commons House 18. Iac. as M r. Attorney objected out of the Journal book of the House But besides neither was the truth of that report of that opinion in the Journal any way acknowledged For it was said in behalf of the House of Commons that their Journals were for matter of order and resolutions of the House of such Authority as that they were as their Records but for any particular Mans opinion noted in any of them it was so far from being of any Authority with them that in truth no particular opinion is at all to be entered in them and that their Clerks offend when ever they do the contrary And to conclude no such opinion whatsover can be sufficient to weaken the clear Law comprehended in these resolutions of the House of Commons grounded upon so many Acts of Parliament so much reason of Common Law and so many Presidents of Record and the resolution of all the Judges of Englaâ—d and against which no Law written not one President not one reason hath been brought that makes any thing to the contrary And thus to this purpose ended the next day of the Conference desired by the Lords and had by a Committee of both Houses The Proceedings against the Earle of SUFFOLK 14. April 1628. MR. Kerton acquainted the House how that the Earle of Suffolk had said to some Gentlemen that M r. Selden had razed a Record and deserved to be hanged for going about to set division betwixt the King and his Subjects And being demanded to whom the words were spoken he was unwilling to name any till by question it was resolved he should nominate him He then named S r. Iohn Strangwaies who was unwilling to speak what he had heard from the Earle but being commanded by the House and resolved by question he confessed That upon Saturday last he being in the Committee Chamber of the Lords the Earle of Suffolk called him unto him and said Sir Iohn will you not hang Selden To whom he said for what The Earle replied By God he hath razed a Record and deserves to be hanged This the House took as a great injury done to the whole House M r. Selden being imployed by them in the conference with the Lords in the great cause concerning the Liberty of the Persons of the Subjects The House presently sent S r. Robert Philips with a message to the Lords to this effect He expressed the great care the Commons had upon all occasions to maintain all mutual respect and correspondency betwixt both Houses Then he informed them of a great injury done by the Earle of Suffolk to the whole house and to M r. Selden a particuler Member thereof who by their Command had been imployed in the late conference with their Lordships That the House was very sensible thereof and
according to former Presidents made them truly acquainted with it and demaunded Justice against the Earle of Suffolk he read the words saying they were spoken to Sir Iohn Strangwayes a Member of their House After a short stay the Lords called for the Messenger to whom the Lord Keeper gave this Answer He signified the great desire and care of their Lordships to maintain and increase the correspondencies betwixt both Houses and as a Testimony thereof they had partly taken into consideration the charge That the Earle of Suffolk being a Man of great place and Honour had voluntarily protested upon his Honour and Soul that there passed no such words as those from him to S r. Iohn Sâ—rangwayes And the Lord Keeper wished that their Lordships speedy proceedings in this business might testifie their love and good will to the Commons House The next day being the 15. of April S r. Iohn Strangwayes made a Protestation openly in the House wherein he avowed that notwithstanding the Earls denial he did speak those words positively unto him and would maintain it any way fitting a Member of that House or a Gentleman of Honour They ordered that this Protestation should be entered into the Journal book and that a Committee should take into consideration what was fit for the House to proceed to for the justification of S r. Iohn Strangwayes and what was fitting to be done in this case and to examine Witness of the proof of the words Upon the 17. day S r. Iohn Elliot reported what the Committee had done That they had sent for and examined S r. Christopher Nevill who related that upon Saturday being in the Lords Committee Chamber the Earle of Suffolk said thus to him M r. Attorney hath cleared the business and hath made the cause plain on the Kings side and further said M r. Selden hath razed a Record and hath deserved to be hanged and the Lower House should do well to joyn with the Higher in a Petition to the King to hang him and added as a reason For M r. Selden went about and took a course to divide the King from his people or words to that effect And being asked whether he conceived that those words of dividing the King from his people had relation to the whole and general action of M r. Selden before the Lords or to the particuler of razing a Record he conceived they were referred to the general action They had examined one M r. Littleton who confessed he heard the Earle of Suffolk speak to a Gentleman whom he knew not words to this affect viz. That he would not be in M r. Seldens Coat for 10000 l. and that M r. Selden deserved to be hanged The second part of this Report concerned the Particuler of S r. Iohn Strangwayes wherein though the Committee found no Witness to prove the words spoken to S r. Iohn Srangwayes yet there were many circumstances which perswaded them of the truth thereof 1. That the same words in the same syllables were spoken to S r. Christopher Nevill and that the Earle as he called to him S r. Iohn Strangwayes so he called to him S r. Christopher Nevill 2. That the Earle of Suffolk called S r. Iohn Strangwayes to him and spake to him was proved by S r. George Fane and S r. Alexander S â— Iohn at which time the Earle seemed full of that which he delivered 3. That S r. Iohn Strangwayes instantly after his discourse with the Earle of Suffolk went to the Earle of Hartford and delivered him the passages betwixt them being the same related in the house 4. From the unwillingness of S r. Iohn Strangwayes though called upon by the House to testifie against the Earle till it was resolved by question he should do it from a probabillity that had not these words been spoken to himself it is like he would have produced S r. Christopher Nevill from whom he also heard the same 5. From the worth of the Gentleman and his ingenious protestation in the House That he was ready to justifie the truth of what he said in any course the House should thinck meet or was fit for a Gentleman of Honour Hereupon the House resolved by question 1. That the Earle of Suffolk notwithstanding his denial had laid a most unjust and scandalous imputation upon M r. Selden a Member of the House being imployed in the service of the House and therein upon the whole House of Commons 2. That this House upon due examination is fully satisfied that S r. Iohn Strangwayes notwithstanding the Earle of Suffolks denial hath affirmed nothing but what is most true and certain 3. That these particulers and additions be again presented to the Lords and the Earle of Suffolk newly charged at the Bar and the Lords desired to proceed in Justice against the Earle and to inflict such punishment upon him as an offence of so high a nature being against the House of Commons doth deserve S r. Iohn Elliot was partly sent with the Message to the Lords who after a while returned this answer That they had taken the Message into consideration and would further take it into due consultation and in convenient time would return an answer by Messengers of their own Several Speeches made at the debates concerning the KINGS Propositions for supply M r. ALFORD THat to answer punctually to every Article was but to discover the Kings wants which is neither safe nor fit as the world now goes nor is it good for him to ask more then we can give nor for us to offer disproportionably withall it might draw to a president for the Subjects to make and maintain Wars S r. ROBERT MAUNSELL IT had been much better for us to have taken care for these proviâ—â—â— 3. years since His desire is not to have the Commons over-burthened That 7. of these Propositions are not to be neglected viz. The safe guarding of the Coasts The defence of the Elve The defence of 〈◊〉 The increasing of the Navy The repairing of the Foâ—â—â— The discharge of the Arrears of Merchants ships and the defence of the King of Denmark the other to be delayed to our next meeting at Michalâ—as S r. FRANCIS SEYMOUR THat as supply is deâ—ired so are we met for that purpose but if by those late courses we be disabled then he is not to expect it from us our greatest grievances being his Majesties pressing wants two subsedies formerly given and five forcibly and unadvisedly taken are great motives not to be too forward That we have too haâ—tily drawn two great Enemies upon us and all this done by men of small or no judgement S r. PETER HAYMAN THat vast Propositions are delivered to us in shew which he desires he may give an Estimate of that first brought them in M r. PYMM. THat in no Case it is â—â—t to examine the Prâ—positions especially of the Arrâ—arages of the Merchant ships and for preparation of the forreign Wars Secretary COKE THat three things
especially are to be taken into consideration the defence of Rochell the Elve and the Forts He perswades to give bountifully and though the people do not presently pay it yet it gives the King credit abroad and much advanceth his affairs We have already by our carriage and temper taken the Kings heart which he adviseth we make good use of S r. DUDLY DIGGS FOr to try and examine faithfully the Propositions he refers it to the Judgement of the House whether it be fit to handle the business in order or to give in gross considering that the Bill of Tonnage and Poundage is now brought into the House which he thinks they conceive to be given for the safe-guarding of the Seas Mr. SPENCER IN no Case to enter into particulars That formerly hath been given 5. Subsedies for the repairing of the Forts and no penny bestowed on them but the money wasted in dishonour Mr. IOHN ELLIOT THat our late disasters at Calis Reez might discourage us from thinking of forreign attempts At Calis when we neglected the taking of the Spanish Fleet in the Harbour nothing attempted at our landing but drincking and disorder no good account given at the return Concerning service at S. Martins the whole account carried against the Judgement of the best Commanders which makes all the World despise and condemne us besides the inriching of the Enemy with kindenesses and parling with the Forts with presents which time will bring to light Sr. EDWARD COKE THat when England stood alone without friends and addition of Kingdoms as 42. E. 3. the King wholly guided by his Parliament-Councel brought alwayes home Victories both against France and Scotland his 4. reasons of it were 1. Good Councel 2. Valiant Leaders 3. Timely provision 4. Good imployment and fore-cast And likewise in Ric. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. He desires to give plentifully and that in gross not to examine the particulers alleadging Solomon's rule qui repetit separat for said he if we rip them up we sever them for ever And in that Proposition for setting forth 30. ships shall we both pay Tonnage and Subsedies for them This will draw a dangerous President Likewise that other in setting forth God knows whether a 1000. Horse and 10000. Foot being not able to set them forth how shall we look to maintain them abroad That in an Iland the defensive War is best and most proper To conclude our guift in gross will serve best with these times for by that course we shall seem to allow all the Propositions and except against none S r. THOMAS WENTWORTH THat he will look after the Iland of England and no further except our Fortunes were better That as he is bound in duty to the King so in faithfull love to his Countrey That our freedom and Liberty being known and granted we then may proportion our guift His conclusion was that the â—inal debate of this question may be laid aside untill Friday and in the mean time go on with our grievances S r. HENRY MARTIN NOt to dash the Ship of the Common-wealth twice upon one Rock The disease that we are now sick of is the Kings Evil which none but himself can cure and Iacob's example is our best Predent who wrestling with the Angel would not give over till he got the blessing That our often repetition of grievances breeds hate and dislike And because we have not to give what is asked Yet to give freely what we intend to give and so by this freeness we shall win the Kings heart M r. KERTON HE desires to know the Rock to the end we may avoid it and not to go back but forward in our conclusion S r. ROBERT PHILIPS HIs good hopes are in his Majesties royal care and wisdom That the free and great Councel is the best but time and hope of change is coming towards us Rome and Spain trench deeply into our Councels That heretofore there hath been a fair progress on both parts according to the saying of the late King If the Parliament did or should give more then the Countrey could bear they gave him a purse with a knife in it Serjant HOSKINS THat knowing our own rights we shall be better enabled to give Two legs go best together our just grievances and our supply which he deâ—ires may not be seperated for by presenting them together they shall be both taken or both refused Serjant ASHLEYS Argument seconding M r. ATTORNEY in the behalf of his MAJESTIE I Hope it will be neither offensive nor tedious to your Lordships if I said somewhat to second M r. Attorney which I the rather desire because yesterday it was taken by the Gentlemen of and argued on the behalf of the Commons that the cause was as good as gained by them and yielded by us in that we acknowledged the Statute of Magna Charta and the other subsequent Statutes to be yet in force for on this they inforced this general conclusion That therefore no man could be committed or imprisoned but by due process presentment or indictment Which we say is a non sequitur upon such our acknowledgement for then it would follow by necessary consequence that no imprisonment could be justified but by process of Law which we utterly deny For in the cause of the Constable cited by M r. Attorney it is most clear that by the ancient Law of the Land a Constable might ex officio without any Warrant Arest and restrain a man to prevent an affray or to suppress it And so is the Authority 38. Hen. 8. Brooks abstract So may he after the affray apprehend and commit to Prison the Person that hath wounded a man that is in peril of death and that without Warrant or Process as it is in 38. E. 3. fol. 6. Also any man that is no Officer may apprehend a Fellon without Writ or Warrant or pursue him as a Wolf and as a common enemy to the Common-wealth as the Book is 14. H. 8. fol. 16. So might any one arrest a Night-walker because it is for the common profit as the reason is given 4. Hen. 7. fol. 7. In like manner the Judges in these several Courts may commit a man either for contempt or misdemeanour without either Process or Warrant other then take him Shrief or take him Marshall or Warden of the Fleet. And the Adversaries will not deny but if the King will alleadge cause he may commit a man per mandatum as the Judges do without Process or Warrant And various are the cases that may be instanced wherein there may be a Lawfull commitment without Process Wherefore I do possitively and with confidence affirm that if the imprisonment be Lawfull whether it be by Process or without Process it is not prohibited by the Law Which being granted then the question will aptly be made whether the King or Councel may commit to Prison per legâ—m terrâ— were onely that part of the Municipal Law of this Realm which we call the
Common Law for there are also divers Jurisdictions in this Kingdom which are also so reckoned the Law of the Land As in Kendrick's Case in the report fol. 8. the 1. Ecclesiastical Law is held the Law of the Land to punish Blasphemies Schismes Heresies Simony Incest and the like for a good reason there rendred viz. That otherwise the King should not have power to do Justice to his Subjects in all Cases nor to punish all Crimes within his Kingdom The Admiral 's Jurisdiction is also Lex terrae for things done upon the Sea but if they exceed their Jurisdiction a prohibition is awarded upon the Statute of null us liber homo by which appears that the Statute is in force as we have acknowledged The Martial likewise though not to be exercised in times of peace when recourse may be had to the Kings Courts yet in times of invasion or other times of Hostility when an Army Royal is in the field and offences are committed which require speedy reformation and cannot expect the solemnity of legal Trials then such imprisonment execution or other Justice done by the Law Martial is Warrantable for it is then the Law of the Land and is Ius gentium which ever serves for a supply in the defeat of the Common Law when ordinary proceeding cannot be had And so it is also in the case of the Law of the Merchant which is mentioned 13. E 4. fol. 9. 10. where a Merchant stranger was wronged in his goods which he had committed to a Carrier to convey to Southampton and the Carrier imbezelled some of the goods for remedy whereof the Merchant sued before the Councel in the Star-Chamber for redress It is there said thus Merchant strangers have by the King safe conduct for coming into this Realm therefore they shall not be compelled to attend the ordinary Trial of the Common Law but for expedition shall sue before the Kings Councel or in Chancery de die in diem de hâ—râ in horam where the Case shall be determined by the Law of Merchants In the like manner it is in the Law of State when the necessity of State requires it they do and may proceed to natural equity as in those other Cases where the Law of the Land provides not there the proceeding may be by the Law of natural equity and infinite are the Occurrences of State unto which the Common Law extends not And if these proceedings of State should not also be accounted the Law of the Land then we do fall into the same inconveniency mentioned in Cawdries Case that the King should not be able to do Justice in all Cases within his own Dominions If then the King nor his Councel may not Commit it must needs follow that either the King must have no Councel of State or having such a Councel they must have no power to make Orders or Acts of State Or if they may they must be without means to compell obedience to those Acts and so we shall allow them Jurisdiction but not compel obedience to those Acts but not correction which will be then as fruitless as the Command Frustra potentia quae nunquam redigitur in statutum Where as the very Act of Westminster first shews plainly that the King may commit and that his commitment is lawfull or else that Act would never have declared a man to be irreprieveable when he is committed by the Command of the King if the Law-makers had conceived that his commitment had been unlawfull And Divine truth informs us that the Kings have their power from God the Psalmist calling them the children of the most High which is in a more special manner understood then of other men for all the Sons of Adam are by election the Sons of God and all the Sons of Abraham by recreation or regeneration the Children of the most High in respect of the power which is committed unto them who hath also furnished them with ornaments and arms fit for the exercising of that power and hath given them Scepters Swords and Crowns Scepters to vestitute and Swords to execute Laws and Crowns as Ensigns of that power and dignity with which they are invested shall we then conceive that our King hath so far transmitted the power of his Sword to inferiour Magistrates that he hath not reserved so much Supream power as to commit an Offender to prisonâ— 10. H. 6. fol. 7. It appears that a Steward of a Court Leet may commit a man to prison and shall not the King from whom all inferior power is deduced have power to commit We call him the fountain of Justice yet when these streams and rivolets which flowe from that Fountain come fresh and full we would so far exhaust that Fountain as to leave it dry but they that will admit him so much power do require the expression of the cause I demand whether they will have a general cause alleadged or a special if general as they have instances for Treason Fellony of for Contempt for to leave fencing and to speak plainly as they intend it If loan of money should be required and refused and thereupon a commitment ensue and the cause signified to be for a contempt this being unequal inconvenience from yielding the remedy is sought for the next Parliament would be required the expression of the particular cause of the commitment Then how unfit would it be for King or Councel in Cases to express the particuler Cause it s easily to be adjudged when there is no State or pollicy of government whether it be Monarchal or of any other frame which have not some secrets of State not communicable to every vulgar understanding I will instance but one If a King imploy an Ambassadour to a Forreign Countrey of States with instructions for his Negotiation and he pursue not his instructions whereby dishonour and dammage may ensue to the Kingdom is not this commitment And yet the particuler of his instruction and the manner of his miscarrying is not fit to be declared to his Keeper or by him to be certified to the Judges where it is to be opened and debated in the presence of a great audience I therefore conclude for offences against the State in Case of State Government the King and his Councel have lawfull power to punish by imprisonment without shewing particular cause where it may tend to the disclosing of State-Government It is well known to many that know me how much I have laboured in this Law of the Subjects Liberty very many years before I was in the Kings service and had no cause then to speak but to speak ex animo yet did I then maintain and publish the same opinion which now I have declared concerning the Kings Supream power in matters of State and therefore can not justly be centured to speak at this present onely to merit of my Master But if I may freely speak my own understanding I conceive it to be a question too high to
they have been delivered upon Habeas Corpus and that constantly It is true that some Presidents were brought on the Kings part that when some of these persons desired to be delivered by Habeas Corpus the King or his Councel signified his Majesties pleasure that they should be delivered or the Kings Attorney hath come into the Court and related the Kings Command but this seems to make for the Subject For that being in his Majesties power to deliver them who by his special Command were imprisoned May not we well think that his Majesty would rather at that time have stayed their deliverance by Law then furthered it with his Letters and made the Prisoners rather beholding to him for his grace and mercy then to the Judges for Justice had not his Majesty known that at that time they ought to have been delivered by Law I think no man would imagine a wise King would have suffered his Grace and Prerogative if any such Prerogative were to be so continually questioned and his Majesty and his Councel so far from commanding the Judges not to proceed to deliver the Prisoner by them committed without Cause shewn as that on the other side which is all the force of these Presidents the King and the Councel signified to the Judges that they should proceed to deliver the parties certainly if the King had challenged any such Prerogative that a Person committed without any cause shewn ought not to be delivered by the Judges without his consent it would have appeared by one President or other amonst all that have been produced that his Majesty would have made some claim to such a Prerogative But it appears to the contrary that in many of these cases the King or his Councel did never interpose and where they did it was alwayes in affirmation and incouragement to that Court to proceed And besides the writing of Letters from his Majesty to the Judges to do Justice to his Majesties Subjects may with as good reason be interpreted that without those Letters they might not do Justice also the King signified his willingness that such such Persons which were committed by him should be delivered therefore they could not be delivered without it which is a strange reason So that findeing the Laws so full so many and so plain in the point and findeing that when ever any were committed without cause shewn brought their Habeas Corpus they were delivered and no Command ever given to the contrary or claim made on the Kings part to any such Prerogative I may safely conclude as the House of Commons have done and if any one President or two of late can be shewn that the Judges have not delivered the Prisoners so committed I think it is their fault and to be enquired of but contrary it seems to me to be an undoubted Liberty of the Subject that if he be committed without cause or without cause shewn yet he may have some speedy course to bring himself to Trial either to justifie his own innocencie or to receive punishment according to his fault for God forbid that an innocent man by the Laws of England should be put in worse case then the most grievous Malefactors are which must needs be if this should be that if a cause be shewed he may have his Trial but if none he must lie and pine in Prison during pleasure Mr. Serjeant Ashley the other day told your Lordships of the Embleme of a King but by his leave made wrong use of it For a King bears in one hand the Globe and in the other the golden Scepter the tipes of Soveraignty and mercie but the Sword of Justice is ever carried before him by a Minister of Justice which shews Subjects may have their remedies for unjustice done and appeals done to higher powers for the Laws of England are so favourable to their Princes as they can do no unjustice Therefore I will conclude as all disputes I hold do Magna est veritas praevalebit so I make no doubt we living under so good a Prince as we do when this is represented unto him he will answer us Magna est Carta praevalebit The ARCH-BISHOPS of CANTERBURIES Speech at the Conference of both Houses 25. April 1628. GEntlemen of the House of Commons the service of the King and safety of the Kingdom do call on us my Lords to give all convenient expedition to dispatch some of those great and weighty businesses for the better effecting whereof my Lords have thought fit to let you know that they do in general agree with you and doubt not but you will agree with us to the best of your power to maintain and support the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and the fundamental Liberties of the Subject for the particulers which may hereafter fall in debate they have given me in charge to let you know that what hath been presented by you to their Lordships they have laid nothing of it by they are not out of love with any thing you have tendered to them they have voted nothing neither are they in love with any thing proceeding from themselves for that which we shall say and propose unto you is out of an intendment to invite you to a mutual and free conference that you with confidence may come to us and we with confidence may speak to you so that we may come to a conclusion of those things which we both unanimously desire we have resolved of nothing defined or determined nothing but desire to take you with us praying help of you as you have done of us My Lords have thought upon some Propositions which they have ordered to be read here and then left with you in writing that if it seem good to you we may uniformly concur for the substance and if you differ that you may be pleased to put out or add or alter or diminish as you shall think fit that so we the better come to the end that we do both so desireously embrace Then the 5. Propositions were read by the Lord BISHOP of NORVVHICH The 5. Propositions 25. April 1628. 1. THat his Majesty would be pleased gratiously to declare that the good old Law called Magna Charta and the 6. Statutes conceived to be Declarations or Explanations of that Law do stand still in Force to all intents and purposes 2. That his Majesty would be pleased gratiously to declare that according to Magna Charta and the Statutes aforesaid as also according to the most ancient Customes and Laws of this Land every free Subject of this Realm hath a fundamental propriety in his good and a fundamental Liberty of his Person 3. That his Majesty would be pleased gratiously to declare that it is his Royal pleasure to ratifie and confirm unto all and every his faithfull and Loyal Subjects all their antient several just Liberties Priviledges and Rights in as ample and beneficial manner to all intents and purposes as their Ancestors did enjoy the same
he doth willingly give way to have the abuse of power reformed by which I do verily believe that he doth very well understand what a miserable power it is which hath produced so much weakness to himself and to the Kingdom and it is our happiness that he is so foreward to redress it For my own part I shall be very glad to see that good old decrepit Law of Magna Charta which hath so long kept in and lain as it were bedrid I should be glad I say to see it walk abroad again with new vigour and lustre attended by the other six Statutes questionless it will be a general hartning to all the People I doubt not but by a debating conference with the Lords we shall happily fall upon a fair and fit accommodation concerning the Liberty of our Persons and propriety of our goods I hope we have a Bill to agree in the point against imprisonment for Loanes or privy Seals as for intrincical power and reason of State they are matters in the clouds where I desire we may leave them and not meddle in them at all least by way of admittance we may loose somewhat of that which is our own already Yet this by the way I will say of reason of State that in the latitude as it is used it hath eaten out almost not onely all the Laws but all the Religion of Christendom Now M r. Speaker I will onely remember you of one precept and that of the wisest Man Be not overwise be not over just and he cited his reason for why wile thou be desolate Sir if Justice and Wisedom may be stretcht to desolation let us thereby learn that moderation is the virtue of virtues and the wisedom of wisedomes Let it be our Master-piece so to carry our business as we may keep Parliaments on foot for as long as they are frequent there will be no irregular power which though it cannot be broken at once yet in short time it will fade and moulter away there can be no total and final loss of Liberty but by loss of Parliaments as long as they last what we cannot get at one time we may have at another Let no man think that what I have said is the language of a private end my aim is upon the good success of the whole for I thank God my minde stands above any fortune that is to be gotten by base and unworthy means No man is bound to be rich or great no nor to be wise but every man is bound to be honnest out of which heart I have spoken The Lord KEEPERS speech 28. April 1628. MY Lords Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons I cannot but remember the great and important affairs concerning the safety both of State and Religion declared at first from his own mouth to be the cause of assembling this Parliament the fear whereof as it doth dayly increase with his Majesty so it ought to do and his Majesty doubts not but it doth so with you since the danger encreaseth every day both by effluction of time and preparation of the enemy Yet his Majesty doth well weigh that this expence of time hath been occasion by the debate that hath risen in both Houses touching the Liberty of both Subjects in which as his Majesty takes in good part the purpose and intent of the Houses so clearly and frequently professed that they would not deminish nor blemish his Royal and just Prerogative so he presumes ye will all confess it a point of extraordinary grace and Justice in him to suffer it to rest so long in dispute without interruption But now his Majesty considering the length of time which it hath already taken and fearing nothing so much any future loss as that whereof every hour and minute is so precious and foreseeing that ordinary way of debate though never so carefull must in regard of the forms of both Houses necessarily take up more time then the affairs of Christendom can permit his Majesty out of his great and Princely care hath thought it expedient to shorten the business by declaring the clearness of his own heart and intention And therefore he hath commanded me to let you know that he holds the Statute of Magna Charta and the other 6. Statutes insisted on for the Subjects Liberty to be all in force and assureth you that he will maintain all his Subjects in the just freedom of their Persons and in safety of their estates and that he will Govern according to the Laws and Staâ—â—tes of the Realm and that you shall finde as much security in his Majesties Royal word and promise as in the strength of any Law you can make so that hereafter you shall never have cause to complain The conclusion is this that his Majesty prayeth that God who hath hitherto blessed this Kingdom and hath put into his heart this day to come unto you will make the success hereof happy both to King and People And therefore he desireth that no doubt or mistrust may possesse any man but that you all will proceed speedily and unanimously with the business The Bishop of EXCETERS Letter sent to the House of COMMONS 28. April 1628. Gentlemen FOr God sake be wise in your well meant Zeal why do you argue away precious time that can never be revoked or repaired Woe is me while we dispute our friends perish and we must follow them where are we if we break and I tremble to think we cannot but break if we hold so stiff Our Liberties and proprieties are sufficiently declared to be sure and legal our remedies are clear and irrefragable what do we fear every Subject sees the way now chalked out for future Justice and who dares henceforth tread besides itâ— Certainly whilest Parliaments live we need not misdoubt the violations of our Freedoms and Rights May we be but where the Law found us we shall sufficiently enjoy our selves and ours It is no season to search for more Oh let us not whilest we over-rigedly plead for an higher strain of safety put our selves into a necessity of ruine and utter despair of redress Let us not in the suspition of Evils that may be cast our selves into a present confusion If you love your selves and your Countrey remit some thing of your own terms and since the substance is yielded by your Noble Patriots stand not too rigorously upon points of circumstance Fear not to trust a good King who after the strict Laws made must be trusted with the execution Think that your Countrey nay Christendom lies on the mercie of your present resolutions Relent or farewell welfare From him whose faithfull heart bleeds in a vowed sacrifice for his King and Countrey EXCETER M r. HACK VVELL of LINCOLNS-INNE his Speech in the Lower-House 1. May 1628. SIR I Chose rather to discover my weakness by speaking then to betray my conscience by silence My opinion is that we shall do well totally to omit our resolution out of
this Bill and rely onely upon a confirmation of the Laws The Objections made against this Opinion are two THe first is that we shall thereby recede from our own resolution The second that by a bare confirmation of the Old Laws without the inserting of our resolution by way of explanation we shall be but in the same case as before For the first that though we desire onely a confirmation without adding of our resolution we do not thereby recede from our resolution I reason thus Our resolution was drawn out of the sence of those Laws which are now desired to be confirmed so that no question can be made by any of us that have thus declared our selves but that our resolution is virtually contained in those Laws if that be so how can our acceptance of a confirmation of these Laws be a departure from our resolution Nay rather we think the contrary is true he that doubts that by confirmation of these Laws our resolution is not hereby confirmed doubts whether we have justly deduced our resolutions out of those Laws and so calls our resolution into question This Argument alone is in my opinion a full answer to that first Objection that in desiring of a bare confirmation of those Laws we depart from our resolutions This Arguments alone is in my opinion a full answer to that first Objection that in desiring of a bare confirmation of these Laws we depart from our resolution The second Objection is that if we have nothing but a confirmation we are in no better case then we were before those late violations of the Law This I deny and do confidently affirm that although we have no more then a confirmation of those Laws which are recited in the Bill that is now before us we shall depart hence in far better case then we came and that in divers respects First some of the Laws recited in this Bill and desired to be confirmed are not printed Laws and are known to few Professors of the Law and much less to others and yet they are Laws of as great consequence for the liberty of the Subject if not of greater then any that are printed as namely 25. E. 3. N o. 1. That loanes against the will of the lender are against reason and the freedom of the Realm 36. E. 3. N o. 9. By which imprisonments by special commandment without due Process are forbidden These two are not printed The excellent Law de tollagio non Concedendo in print hath in a publick Court been by a great Coucellour said to be but a Charter and no Law The Satute 1. Rich. 3. against benevolences is by some opinions in print an absolute Law if we can get all these goods Laws besides those 6. other which are expositions of Magna Charta in the point of the freedom and our Persons to be confirmed and put in one Law to the easie view of all men is not our Case far better then when we came hither Secondly will not the occasion of the making of this Law of confirmation so notoriously known be transmitted to all posterity certainly it will never be forgotten that the occasion thereof was the imprisonment of those worthy Gentlemen for not lending and the resolution in the Kings-bench in denying to bayl them and is not the occasion of the making of a Law a good rule to expound it If so then by giving a confirmation upon this occasion we have bettered our Case very much Thirdly have not the Judges in the Kings-bench in open Parliament upon our complaint disclaimed to have given any Judgement in the point which generally before by the Parliament was otherwise conceived for now they say it was but an Award and no Judgement Will such a Notorious Act upon so important an occasion in so publick a place be quickly forgotten Nay will not the memorie of it for ever remain upon Records is not our Case then much better then when we came hither Fourthly will not the resolution of this House and all our Arguments and reasons against imprisonment without a Cause expressed which no doubt by the course we have taken will be transferred to posterity be a great means to stay any Judge hereafter for declaring any Judgement to the contrary especially if there be likelyhood of a Parliament is not our Case in this very much amended Lastly have we not received Propositions from the Lords wherein amongst other things they declared that they are not out of love with our proceedings is not this a great strenghtning to it but after so long debate amongst them about it they cannot take any just exception to it and doth not this also much amend our Case From all these reasons I conclude that the second Objection that by a confirmation we are in no better case then when we came together is also a weak Objection Now for reasons to move us to proceed in this course of accepting a confirmation First we have his Majesties gracious promise to yield to a confirmation of the old Laws from which we may rest most assured he will not depart If we tender him with all our Proposition to be enacted we have cause to doubt that we shall loose both the one and the other Secondly we are no less assured of the Lords joyning with us for in their Propositions sent to us they have delivered themselves to that purpose This is then a secure way of getting somewhat of great advantage to us as we have great hopes and in manner assurance on this side So on the other side we have great doubts and fears that by offering our resolution to be enacted we shall loose all For first we have had already experience of the Lords that they are not very foreward to joyn with us in a Declaration of our Proposition to be Law If they stumble at a Declaration much more will they in yielding to make Law in the same point And have we not much more cause to doubt that his Majesty will not yield unto it seeing it toucheth him so near Is it not the notice of his pleasure that hath wrought thus with the Lords If we should clog our Bill with our Proposition and it should be rejected by the Lords or by the King is not our resolution much weakned by it And are we not then in far worse case then before we made it Our resolution for the rejecting of our Proposition will tend to a Justification of all that hath been done against us in this great point of our Liberty Let us then like wise-men conform our desire to our hopes and guide our hopes by probabilities other desires and other hopes are but vain This is my poor opinion in this weighty business Secretary COKES Message 1. May 1628. M r. Speaker I Have a very short message to deliver from his Majesty that shews both his Royal care to be rightly understood of this House and no less care to understand us in the best part and
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 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 â—â—ener 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
Lords viam faustam both to his Majesty and your Lordships and to our selves for my Lords this is the greatest bond that any Subject can have in Parliament verbum Regis that is an high point of Honour but this shall be done by the Lords and Commons and assented to by the King in Parliament This is the greatest obligation of all and this is for the Kings Honour and our safety And therefore my Lords we have drawn a form of a Petition desiring your Lordships to concur with us herein for we come with an unanimous consent of all the House of Commons for there is great reason your Lordships should do so because that your Lordships be involved in the same condition commune periculum and so I have done with the first part And now I shall be bolde to read that which we have so agreed on I shall desire your Lordships that I may read it The Petition of Right to the KINGS most Excellent Majesty HUmbly sheweth unto our Soveraign Lord the King the Lords spiritual temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled That whereas it is declared and enacted by a Statute made in the time of the Raign of King Edw. 1. commonly called Statutum de tallagio non concedendo That no Tollage or aid should be laid or levied by the King or his Heirs in this Realm without the good will and assent of the Arch-Bishop Earles Barons Knights Burgesses and others the freemen of the Cominalty of this Realm And by Authority of Parliament holden in the 13. year of the Raign of King Ed. 3. it is declared and enacted that from thence-forth no Persons should be compelled to make any loan to the King against his will because such loans were against reason and the Franchises of the Land And by other Laws of this Realm it is provided that none should be charged by any charge or imposition called a Benevolence nor by such like charge by which the Statutes before mentioned and other the good Laws and Statutes of this Realm your Subjects have inherited this freedom that they should not be compelled to Contribute to any Tax Tollage Aid or other like charge not set by common consent in Parliament Yet nevertheless of late divers Commissions directed to sundry Commissioners in several Countreys with instructions have issued by means whereof your people have been in divers parts assembled and required to lend certain summes of money to your Majesty And many of them upon refusal so to do have had an unlawfull Oath administred unto them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm and have been constrained to become bound to make appearance and give attendance before your privy Councel and in other places And others of them have been therefore imprisoned confined and sundry other wayes molested and disquieted and divers other charges have been laid and levied upon your people in several Countreys alleadging some superior by Lord Lieutenants Deputy Lieutenants Commissioners for Musters Justices of Peace and others by command or direction against the Laws and free Customes of the Realm from your Majestie or your privy Councel And where also by the Statute called the great Charter of the Liberties of England It is declared and enacted That no Freeman may be taken nor â—mprisoned nor be disseised of his Freehold nor Liberties nor his free Customes nor be outlawed or exiled or in any manner destroyed but by the Lawfull judgement of his Peers or by the Law of the Land And in the 28. year of the Raign of King Edw. 3. it was declared and enacted by Authority of Parliament that no man of what Estate or condition he be shall put out of his Land or Tenement nor taken nor imprisoned nor disinherited nor put to death without being brought to answer by due process of Law Nevertheless against the Tenour of the said Statutes and other the good Laws and Statutes of your Realm to that end provided divers of your Subjects have of late been imprisoned without any cause shewed and when for their deliverance they were brought before your Justices by your Majesties Writ of Habeas Corpus there to undergo and receive as the Court should order and the Keepers commanded to certefie the causes of their detainer no cause was certified but that they were detained by your Majesties special command signified by the Lords of your privy Councel and yet were returned back to several Prisons without being charged with any thing the which they might make answer to and to Law And whereas of late great Companies of Souldiers and Marriners have been dispersed into divers Countreys of the Realm and the Inhabitants against their wills have been compelled to receive them into their houses and there to suffer them to sojourn against the Laws and Customes of this Realm and to the great grievance and vexation of the people And whereas also by Authority of Parliament in the 25. E. 3. it is declared and enacted that no man shall be fore-judged of Life or Limb against the form of the great Charter and the Law of the Land and by the said great Charter and other the Laws and Statutes of this your Realm no man ought to be adjudged to death but by the Laws established in this your Realm Nevertheless of late times divers Commissions under your Majesties great Seal have issued forth by which certain Persons have been assigned and appointed Commissioners with power and Authority to proceed within the Land according to the Justice of Martial Law against such Souldiers or Marriners or other dissolute Persons joyning with them as should commit any Murther Robbery Fellony Mutiny or other outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever and by such summary course and order as is agreeable to Martial Law and is used in Armies in time of War to proceed to the trial and condemnation of such offenders and them to cause to be executed and put to death according to the Law Martial By pretext whereof some of your Majesties Subjects have been by some of the said Commissioners put to death when and where if by the Laws and Statutes of the Land they had deserved death by the same Laws and Statutes also they might and by none other ought to have been adjudged and executed And also sundry grievous offenders by colour thereof claiming an exemption have escaped the punishment due to them by the Laws and Statutes of this your Realm By reason whereof divers of your Officers and Ministers of Justice have unjustly refused or forbore to proceed against such offenders according to the same Laws and Statutes upon pretence that the said offenders were punishable onely by Martial Law and by Authority of such Commissions as aforesaid which Commissions and all other of like nature are directly contrary to the said Laws and Statutes of this your Realm They do therefore humbly pray your most Excellent Majesty that no man hereafter be compelled to make or yield any Guift Loan Benevolence Tax or such
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 not 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 conteined but particuler Rights of the Subject and nothing at all concerning his Majesties Prerogative Secondly that answer was to give his Majectie satisfaction of all our proceedings in general and no man can assign any particuler in which we have broken it and this Petition justifies it self that in it we have not offended against the protestation and I know no reason but that this declaration should be added to all our Laws we shall agree on this Parliament as well as to this Petition The last reason given was that we have varied in our Petition from the words of Magna Charta and therefore it was well necessary that a saving should be added to the Petition I answer that in the Statute 5. E. 3. 25. E. 3. 28. E. 3. and other Statutes with which Magna Charta is confirmed the words of the Statute of explanation differ from the words of Magna Charta it self the words of some of the Statutes of explanation being that no man ought to be apprehended unless by indictment or due process of Law the other statutes differing from the words of Magna Charta in many other particulars and yet there is no saving in those Statutes much less should there be any in a Petition of Right these are the answers I have conceived to the reasons of their Lordships and the exposition I apprehend must be made of the proposed words being added to our Petition And therefore I conclude that in my opinion we may not consent to this addition which I submit to better Judgements The Reasons of the Commons House delivered by M r. GLANUILE why they cannot admit of the Propositions tendered unto them by the Lords May it please your Lordships I Am commanded by the House of Commons to deliver unto your Lordships their reasons why they cannot admit of the Proposition tendered unto them by you but for an introduction into the busines please you to remember that a Petition of Right was shewed to your Lordships wherein we desired you would joyn with us a Petition my Lords fitting for these times grounded upon Law and seeking no more then the Subjects just Liberty The Petition consisted of 4. parts The first touching Loan Aids and Taxes The second touching imprisonment of mens Persons The third touching Billeting of souldiers The fourth touching Commissions issued for Martial Law and put in execution upon several Persons Groaning under the burthen of these we desired remedy and wish your Lordships would joyn with us which you having taken into consideration we must confess have dealt nobly and freely with us not to conclude any thing till you hear our just reasons for which we thank your Lordships and hope your Lordships will value those reasons which we shall now offer unto your Lordships The work of this day will make a happy issue if your Lordships please to relinquish this as we formerly upoâ— conference with your Lordships have done some other things For the Proposition my Lords we have debated it throughly in our House and I am commanded to deliver unto you the reasons why we cannot infert this clause Neither your Lordships nor we desire to debate Liberty beyond the due bounds or to incroach upon the Kings Prerogative and lessen the bounds thereof The first reason I am to lay down is touching Soveraign power which I beseech you not to accept as my own being but a weak Member of that strong body but as the reasons of the whole House upon great and grave considerations First my Lords the words Soveraign power hath either reference or no reference to the Petition if no reference then superfluous if a reference then dangerous and operative upon the Petition and we think your Lordships purposes is not to offer unto us any thing that may be vain or to the hinderance of any thing wherein you have already joyned with us The Petition declareth the Right of the Subject which
yet may be broken by the word Soveraign power and so the virtue of the Petition taken away The end of the Petition is not to enlarge the bounds of Law but their Liberties being infringed to reduce them to their ancient bounds and shall we by admitting of these words Soveraign power instead of cureing the wound launch it and cut it deeper The next point is the word trust a word of large latitude and deep sence we know that there is a trust in the Crown and King but regulated by Law we acknowledge in penal Statutes the King may grant another power to dispense with the Law but Magna Charta inflicting no penalty leaveth no trust but claimeth his own right therefore the word trust would confound this distinction Our next reason is we think it absolutely repugnant to any course of Parliament to put saving to the Petition In former times the course of petitioning the King was this The Lords and the Speaker either by words or writing preferred their Petition to the King this then was called the Bill of the Commons which being received by the King part he received and part he put out part he ratified for as it came from him it was drawn into a Law But this course in 2. H. 5. was found prejudicial to the Subject and since in no such cases they have petitioned by Petition of Right as we now do who come to declare what we demaund of the King For if we should tell him what we should not demaund we should then proceed not in a Parliamentary course Now for that which is alleadged by your Lordships de articulis sup Chartas that my Lords is not like this that is saving upon particulars But this Petition consisting on particulers would be destroyed by a general saving The saving de articulis sup Chartas are of three aids for Ransomming the Kings Person for Knighting the Kings eldest Son and once for Marrying the Kings eldest Daughter These by the form of the Petition shew that they came not in upon the Kings answer but upon the Petition First then followed the savings which under favour we think are no reasons to make us accept of this saving being not pertinent to the Petition These 23. Statutes 34. E. 1. were made to confirm Magna Charta so that there are in all 30. Acts to set Magna Charta in its purity and if some subsequent Statute have laid some blemish upon it shall we now then make the subject in worse case by laying more weight upon it God forbid In the next place your Lordships reason thus that this which you wish we would admit of is no more then what we formerly did profess when we sent the King word we had no purpose at all to trench upon his prerogatives It is true my Lords we did so but this was not annexed to any Petition for in that manner we should never have done it And here I am commanded with your favours to deliver unto you what a Learned Member of the House delivered unto our House touching this point The King saith he and the Subject hath two liberties Two Mannors joyning one upon another the King is informed the Subject hath intruded upon him but upon triall it appeareth not to be so were it fitting think you that the Subject should give security that he should not inâ—roach or intrude on that Mannor of his because the King had been informed he did so I think you will be of another minde wherefore I am commanded seeing we cannot admit of this addition to desire your Lordships to joyn with us in the Petition which being granted and the hearts of the King and people knit togeather I doubt not but his Majestie will be safe at home and feared abroad Sir HENRY MARTINS Speech MY Lords the work of this day wherein the House of Commons hath implyed the Gentleman that spake last and my self was to reply to the answer which it hath pleased the Lord Keeper to make to those reasons which we had offered to your Lordships conâ—ideration in justification of our refusall not to admit into our Petition the addition commended by your Lordships which reasons of ours since they have not given such satisfaction as we desired and well hoped as by the Lord Keepers answer appeared It was thought fit for our better order and method in replying to divide the Lord Keepers answer into two parts a Leagall and a Rationall The reply to the leagall your Lordships have heard my self comes intrusted to reply to the rational which also consisted of two branches the first deduced from the whole context of the additional clause the second inforced out of some part In the first were these reasons that the same deserved our acceptance First as satisfactory to the King Secondly to your Lordships Thirdly agreeable to what our selves had often protested and professed expresly by the mouth of our Speaker I must confess these motives were weighty and of great force and therefore to avoid misunderstanding and misconceit which otherwise might be taken against the House of Commons upon refusall of the propounded addition It is necessary to State the question rightly and to set down the true difference between your Lordships and us Now indeed there is no difference or question between your Lordships and us concerning this additional clause in the nature and quality of a proposition For so considered we say it is most true and to be received and imbraced by us In toto qualibet parte qualibet syllaba yea and were that the question we should add to this addition and instead of due regard say we have had have and ever will have a special and singular regard where to leave entire Sovereign power were to intimate as if we had first cropt it and then left it but our regard was to acknowledge and confess it sincerely and to maintain it constantly even to the hazard of our goods and lives if need be To which purpose your Lordships may be pleased to remember that strict oath every Member of our House hath taken this very session in these words I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience that the Kings highness is the Supreme or Sovereign Governour of this Realm in all Causes c. and to my utmost power will assist and defend all Iurisdictions Priviledges Preheminencies and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness or united or annexed to the Impâ—rial Crown of this Realm c. So that your Lordships need not to borrow from our protestations any exhortations to us to entertain a writing in assistance of the Kings Sovereign power since we stand obliged by the most Sacred bond of a solemn Oath to assist and defend the same if cause or occasion so required So that the onely question between your Lordships and us is whether this clause should be added to our Petition and received into it as part thereof which to do your Lordships reasons
his Majesty and so they put him upon designes that stand not with publick liberty that he commands what he lifts with Lives Goods and Religion and doth as he pleaseth and so they involve all true hearted English-men and Christians under the name of Puritans and so make their quarrel to be his Majesties which is treason of the highest quality Tuesday 27. A Petition was exhibited concerning one Lewis that said about the 25 of December The Devill take the Parliament which was avowed by 2 witnesses It was resolved to be an offence to the Parliament and it was ordered he should be sent for SIr Nathaniel Rich tendered a Petition touching the Fast which was agreed to be preferred to the King It was ordered that a conference should be desired with the Lords about this Petition who were desired to joyn with the lower House which was done accordingly THe King sent a Message by Secretary Cooke to this effect viz. That his Majesty understanding that the Remonstrance was called for to take away all question commanded me to deliver it to you but hopeth that you proceed with the Bill of Tonnage and Poundage and give precedence to that business and to give an end to further dispute between some of his Subjects or else he shall think his Speech that was with a good applause accepted had not that good effect which he expected But before his Messege there was a report made by Mr. Pym for a Committee for Religion where a motion was made about the Remonstrance the last Session concerning that part which toucheth Religion and the Clark answered that by command from the King he delivered it to the Lord Privy Seal and so the Committee proceeded no farther SIr Walter Earl replied to the Message The last part of the Message calls me up For point of precedency Religion challeâ—geth the precedence and the right of our best endeavors Vbi dolor ibi digitus I know justice and liberty is Gods cause but what will justice and liberty do when Popery and Arminianisme joyn hand in hand together to bring in a Spanish Tyranny under which those Laws and liberties must cease What hath been done for Religion since the last Session We know what declarations have been made what persons have been advanced what truthes confirmed by all Authority of Church Councels and King For my part I will forgo my life and estate and liberty rather than my Religion And I dare boldly affirm that never was more corruption between Religion and matters of state than is at this present time Humana consilia castigantur ubi coelestibus se praeferunt Let us hold our selves to method and that God that carried us through so many difficulties the last Parliament Session will not be wanting to us now Mr. Corrington LEt us not do Gods work negligently We receive his Majesties Message withall duty for our proceedings let us so proceed as it may soonest conduce to his Majesties desire Unity concerns all of us the unity of this house is sweet especially in Gods cause let us cry and cry again for this let us be resolved into a Committee and presently fall to debate thereof UPon Mr. Pyms motion It was ordered that Religion should have the precedency and that the particulars before named should be taken into consideration by a Committee of the whole House Wensday 28. Secretary COOKE delivered another Message from his Majesty HIs Majesty upon occasion of dispute in this House about Tonnage and Poundage was pleased to make a gracious declaration wherein he commended unto us the speedy finishing thereof and to give precedency thereto and since his Majesty understanding the preferring the Cause of Religion his Majesty expected rather thanks than a Remonstrance yet he doth not interrupt you so you do not intrench upon that which doth not belong unto you But his Majesty still commanded me to tell you that he expects precedency in Tonnage and Poundage assuring himself he hath given no occasion to put it back and so you will not put it off To this Mr. Long replied I Cannot see but with much sorrow how we are still presed to this point I hoped those near the Chair would have truly informed his Majesty of our good intentions but we see how unhappy we are still some about his Majesty makes him diffident of us Sir Thomas Edmonds I am sorry this House hath given occasion of so many Messages about Tonnage and Poundage after his Majesty hath given us a full satisfaction You may perceive his Majesty is sensible of the neglect of his business we that know this should not discharge our duties to you if we should not perswade you to that course which should procure his Majesties good opinion of you Your selves are witnesses how industrious his Majesty was to procure you gracious Laws in his Fathers time and since that what enlargement he hath made of our liberties and yet still we give him cause to repent him of the good he hath done Consider how dangerous it is to Alienate his Majesties heart from Parliamens Mr. Corington When men speak here of neglect of duty to his Majesty let them know we know no such thing nor what they mean I see not how we do neglect the same I see it is all our hearts to expedite the Bill of Tonnage and Poundage in due time our business is still put back by these Messages and the business in hand is of God and his Majesty Things are certainly amiss and every one sees it and wo be to us if we present them not to his Majesty Sir Iohn Elliot His Speech to the same effect IT was ordered that a Committee should be appointed to pen an Answer to his Majesties Message and shew that it is their resolution to give him all expeditions in his service and that they hold it fit not onely to give him thanks but further to shew what perill we are in and that Tonnage is their own gift and it is to arise from themselves and that they intend not to enter into any thing that belongs not unto themselves Thursday 29. THe former part of the day was spent in dilating of the transportation of corn and victuals into Spain and it was ordered that Message should be sent to his Majesty that it is now evident that diverse ships are bound for Spain and to desire a stay of them After the House sat at a Committee about Religion after long debate it was resolved by the Commons-House as before Friday 30. THe House received an answer from his Majesty touching the Ships which was that he would consider of it and send them an answer in due time Also this day a Committee of the Lower-House went to the King in the Privy-Chamber with the Petition for the Fast and the Arch-Bishop of York after he had made a short Speech presented it to his Majesty in the name of both Houses To which the King answered Munday Febr. 2. THe Lower-House presented a declaration
other new misdemeanors He is Ordered to be sent for Sir Iohn Elliot A Motion for Priviledge of Merchants Order is That any man having a Complaint depending here in the mean time intimation shall be given to my Lord Keeper That no Attachment shall go forth against the Merchants Chancellor of the Dutchie reported the Message to the Chequer Court that the Treasurer and the Barons will forthwith take the same into consideration and return answer It is Ordered Mr. Secretarie Cook shall take care that intimation shall be given to the Citie about the Fast. Doctor More called in saith he was referred to the Bishop of Winchester to be censured for preaching a Sermon the Bishop said he had heard him preach and deliver many prettie passages against the Papists which pleased King Iames but he must not do so now That you have a brother that preacheth against Bowing at the high Altar or at the name of Iesus and that the Communion Tables stood as Tables in Ale-houses but he would have them to be set as High Altars Dr. Moor is to deliver these things in writing to Morrow morning At the Committee for Religion SIr William Bawstrod If we now speak not we may for ever hold our peace when besides the Queens Mass there are two other Masses dayly so that it is grown ordinarie with the out-facing Iesuits and common in discourse Will you go to Mass or have you been at Mass at Somerset-house there coming 500 at a time from Mass. Desires to know by what authoritie the Iesuits lately in Newgate were released Mr. Corington Doubts not but his Majesties intention was good in the Declaration lately published but I conceive it will be made use of onely to our disadvantage that therefore the Declaration made be taken into consideration Sir Richard Gravenor REports the proceedings of this House against Poperie the last Sessâ—â—â— and what fruits have been thereon Sir Rober Phillips If ever there were a necessitie of dealing plainly and freely this is the time There is an Admission of Priests and Iesuits as if it were in Spain or France thâ—s increase of Papists is by connivance of persons in Authoritie Nine hundred and fourtie persons in houses of Religion being English Irish and Scots in the Netherlands maintained by the Papists of England and of this I shall deliver the particulars that we may frame a Remonstrance to the King that unless there be some better performance of his Majesties late answers to so many Petitions our Religion will be past recoverie Mr. Corington That the Papists by Act of Parliament or Laws of State may be removed from their offices which we have just cause to suspect Mr. Selden moveth that these things may be debated in order and first for releasing the Iesuits that were arraigned at Newgate whereof one was condemned they were 10 in number which were Priests who had begun a Colledge here in London about Clarkenwell and these men could not attempt these acts of boldness But they must have great countenancers Secretarie Cook THat a Minister who is said to be himself having notice of these 10 and this Colledge intended to be kept at Clarkenwell That it is plain there was a place appointed for this Colledge and Orders and Relicts prepared This Minister made the King acquainted with it and I should not do my dutie if I should not declare how much his Majestie was affected with it His Majestie refers it to the special care of the Lords of the Councell who examining the same sent these ten persons to Newgate and gave order to Mr. Attorney to prosecute the Law against them That this Colledge was first at Eâ—monton removed from thence to Camerwell and thence to Clerkenwell Ordered That all the Knights and Burgesses of the House shall to Morrow morning declare their knowledge what Letters or other hinderances have been for the staying of proceedings against Recusants Mr. Long a Justice of Peace who is said to understand much in the business of the Colledge of Iesuits at Clarkenwell is sent for and examined saith by the appointment of Mr. Secretarie Cook he apprehended these persons and took their Examinations and saith further he heard they were delivered out of Newgate by order from Mr. Attorney That Mr. Middlemore or General Soliciter for the Papists hired this house for the Lord of Shrewsbâ—rie a Papist and that there are diverse books of account of payments and disbursments to the value of 300 pounds per Annum with diverse Recusants names who allowed towards the maitenance of this Colledge and these books and papers are in the hand of Mr. Secretary Cook Secretarie Cook saith he cannot so amply declare the truth of the proceedings herein untill he have leave from his Majestie One Cross a Pursevant is to be examined upon oath who declareth he could discover diverse stoppages of the execution of the Laws against Recusants Saturday 14. A Complaint against the Lord Lambert a Baron of Ireland and a Member of this House who being a Colonel of Souldiers in Midd. hath imposed Four pence upon every Souldier towards his Officers Charges and the Petitioner for refusing to pay was first set in the Stocks and after by the Lord Lambert committed to a Publick prison It is Ordered that the Lord Lambert shall be sent for to answer this Sir Iohn Epsley desireth leave to answer a Complaint that is in the Lords house of Parliament against him Mr. Selden That the use was and citeth Presidents that no Commander could be called to the Lords House but it will trench much to the disadvantage of the Priviledge of this House and untill 18. Iac. there was never President to the contrarie That therefore this may be considered of by a select Committee Ordered that Sir Iohn Epsley shall not have leave Mr. Chancellor of the Dutchie stifly secondeth Mr. Seldens Motion Mr. Secretarie Cook I am as carefull to maintain a good correspondencie with the Lords as any man but connivances in this kind may overthrow the fundamental Rights and Liberties of this House Let it therefore seriously be considered of for this not onely concerneth the Right of this House but the Libertie of the Common-wealth Ordered a select Committee shall be appointed to consider this Mr. Chancellor of the Dutchie delivereth an answer in writing from the Lord Chancellor Trer. and Barons to the Message sent to them Mr. Kirton WE looked for Satisfaction but now you see a Justification of their actions I therefore desire now we may proceed to consider of their proceedings and whether ever the Court of Exchequer held this course before for staying of Replevies and whether these have been done by the Regal Prerogative of the King in his Court of Exchequer It is Ordered that a select Committee of Lawyers Chequer-men shall take this into consideration Mr. Selden We have delayed the proceeding with the Customers expecting some good success from the Chequer but finding it otherwise I desire the Customers may be called