Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	word_n	writ_n	write_v	34	3	5.9588	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40660	Ephemeris parliamentaria, or, A faithfull register of the transactions in Parliament in the third and fourth years of the reign of our late Sovereign Lord, King Charles containing the severall speeches, cases and arguments of law transacted between His Majesty and both Houses : together with the grand mysteries of the kingdome then in agitation.	England and Wales. Parliament.; Fuller, Thomas, 1608-1661.	1654 (1654)	Wing F2422; ESTC R23317	265,661	308

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

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 And● 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 griev●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

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