Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n act_n parliament_n person_n 2,736 5 5.0257 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A40689 The sovereigns prerogative and the subjects priviledge discussed betwixt courtiers and patriots in Parliament, the third and fourth yeares of the reign of King Charles : together with the grand mysteries of state then in agitation. England and Wales. Parliament.; Fuller, Thomas, 1608-1661. 1657 (1657) Wing F2467; ESTC R16084 264,989 306

There are 5 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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 unanimously 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 Grand 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 eum ibimus nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae These words Nullus liber homo 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 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
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 estate 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. 36. 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 The eighth generall reason is drawn à tuto for it is safe for the King to expresse the cause of the commitment 1. E. 2. de frang prison stat 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 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 escape albeit he be innocent is treason or felony Ninth generall reason The ninth generall reason is drawn from the authorities 16. H. 6. tit Monstrans defaits 182. 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 c. 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 haereditas 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 nihiltam proprium est imperii quam legibus vivere And again Attribuat Rex 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 a Prophet prayed to Almighty God against dissimulation in these words Lord send me a sound heart in thy statutes that I be not ashamed where sound in the originall signifieth upright without dissimulation and shame followeth dissimulation when the truth is known Third object If a Rebell be attainted in Ireland and his children for safety and for matter of state be kept in the Tower what shall be returned upon the Habeas Corpus Whereunto It was answered First that their imprisonment might be justified if they could not find good sureties for their good behaviour Secondly It was charity to find them meat drink and apparell that by the Attainder of their father had nothing Fourth object Though his Majesty expresseth no cause yet it must be intended that there was a just cause Answ. De non apparentibus de non existentibus eadem ratio Fifth object First The King in stead of gold or silver may make money currant of any base metall Secondly He may make warres at his pleasure Thirdly He may pardon whom he will Fourthly He may make denizens as many as he will and these were said to be greater priviledges then this in question Answ. To the first it is denyed that the King may make money currant of base metal but it ought to be gold or silver Secondly It was answered admitting the King might do it his losse and charge was more then of his Subjects both in the case of money and in the case of warre The pardon was private out of grace and no man had dammage or loss by it so of the making of denizens the King was only the looser viz. to have single custome where he had double Thirdly it was a non sequitur The King may do these things ergo he may imprison at will Your Lordships are advised by them that cannot be daunted by fear nor misled by affection reward or hope of preferment that is of the dead By ancient and many Acts of Parliament in the point besides Magna Charta which hath been 30 times confirmed and commanded to be put in execution wherein the Kings of England have thirty times given their Royall assent Secondly Judiciall Presidents per vividas rationes manifest and apparant reasons we in the house of Commons have upon great studie and serious consideration made a grand manifesto unanimously nullo contradicente concerning this great Liberty of the subject and have vindicated and recovered the body of this fundamentall Liberty both of your Lordships of our selves from shadowes which some time of the day are long sometimes short and sometimes long again and therefore no Judges are to be led by them Your Lordships are involved in the same danger and therefore ex congruo condigno we desire a conference to the end your Lordships might make the like declaration as we
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 whatsoever 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 England 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 Sr. Iohn Strangwayes 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 Sr. 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 Sr. Christopher Nevill who related that upon Saturday being in the Lords Committee Chamber the Earle of Suffolk said thus to him Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Sr. Christopher Nevill and that the Earle as he called to him S r. Iohn Strangwayes so he called to him Sr. 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 r. Iohn
these is the Case of S r Samuel Saltonstall It is Hill 12. Iacob He was committed to the Fleet per mandatum Domini Regis and besides by the Court of Chauncery for disobeying an order of that Court and is returned upon his habeas Corpus to be therefore detained And it is true that a remittitur is entred in the Roll but it is only a remittitur prisonae predict without quousque secundum legem deliberatus fuerit And in truth it appeares in the Record that the Court gave the Warden of the Fleet 3 severall dayes at severall times to amend his Return and in the interim remittitur prisonae predict still Certainly if the Court had thought that the Return had been good they would not have given so many severall dayes to have amended it For if that mandatum Domini Regis had been sufficient in the Case why needed it to have been amended The ninth and last of these is Trinit 13. Iacob Rot. 71. the Case of the said S r Samuel Saltonstall He is returned by the Warden of the Fleet as in the Case before and generally remittitur as in the Roll which proves nothing at all that therefore the Court thought he might not by Law be enlarged and besides in both Cases he stood committed also for disobeying an order in Chauncery These are all that have been pretended to the contrary in this great point and upon the view of them thus opened to your Lordships it is plain that there is not one not so much as one at all that proveth any such thing as that persons committed by the Command of the King or of the Lords of the Councell without cause shewed might not be enlarged but indeed the most of them expresly prove rather the contrary Now my Lords having thus gone through the Presidents of Record that concern this point of either side before I come to the other kind of Presidents which are the solemn resolution of Judges in former times I shall as I am commanded by the House of Commons represent unto your Lordships somewhat else that they have thought very considerable with which they have met while they were in a most carefull enquirie of whatsoever concerned them in this great Question It is my Lords a draught of an Entry of a Judgement in that great Case lately adjudged in the Court of Kings Bench when divers Gentlemen imprisoned per speciale mandat Domini Regis were by the Award and Judgement of the Court after solemn debate sent back to Prison because it was expresly said that they could not in Justice deliver them though they prayed to be bailed The case is famous and well known to your Lordships therefore I need not further mention it And as yet indeed there is no Judgement entred upon the Roll but there is room enough for any kind of Judgement to be entred But my Lords there is a form of a Judgement a most unusuall one such a one as never was in any such Case before used for indeed there was never before any Case so adjudged and this drawn up by a chief Clark of that Court by direction of M r Attorney Generall as the House was informed by the Clark in which the reason of the Judgement and the remanding of those Gentlemen is expressed in such sort as if it should be declared upon Record for ever that the Law were that no man could be enlarged from imprisonment that stood committed by any such absolute command The draught is only in S r Iohn Henningham's Case being one of the Gentlemen that was remanded and it was made for a form for all the rest The words of it are after the usuall Entrie of a Curia advisur vult for a time that visis return predict nec non diversis antiquis Recordis in Curia hic remanent consimiles casus concernentibus maturaque deliberatione inde prius habita eo quod nulla specialis causa captionis five detentionis predict Johannis exprimitur sed generaliter quod detentus est in prisona predict per speciale mandatum Domini Regis ideo predictus Johannes remittitur perfato Custodi Marr. hospitii predict salvo custodiend quousque c. that is quousque secundum legem deliberatus fuerit And if that Court which is the highest for ordinary Justice cannot deliver him secundum legem what Law is there I beseech you my Lords that can be sought for in any other inferiour Court to deliver him Now my Lords because this draught if it were entred in the Roll as it was prepared for no other purpose would be a great declaration contrary to the many Acts of Parliament already cited contrary to all Presidents of former times and to all reason of Law to the utter subversion of the chiefest Liberty and Right belonging to every Free-man of the Kingdome and for that especially also it supposeth that divers ancient Records had been looked into by the Court in like Cases by which Records their Judgements were directed whereas in truth there is not one Record at all extant that with any colour not so much indeed as with any colour warrants the Judgement therefore the House of Commons thought fit also that I should with the rest that hath been said shew this draught also to your Lordships I come now to the other kind of Presidents that is solemn Resolutions of Judges which being not of Record remain only in authentick Copies But of this kind there is but one in this Case that is a resolution of all the Judges in England in the time of Queen Elizabeth It was in the foure and thirtieth yeare of her reign when divers persons had been committed by absolute command and delivered by the Justices of one Bench or the other whereupon it was desired that the Judges would declare in what Cases persons committed by such Command were to be enlarged by them The resolution hath been variously cited and variously apprehended The House of Commons therefore desiring with all care to enforme themselves as fully of the truth of it as possibly they might got into their hands from a member of their House a book of selected Cases collected by a learned and reverend Chief Justice of the Common Pleas that was one of them that gave the Resolution which is entred at large in that book I mean the Lord Chief Justice Anderson It is written in that book in his own hand as the rest of the book is And however it hath been cited and was cited in that great Judgement given upon the habeas Corpus in the King's Bench as if it had been that upon such commitments the Judges might not baile the prisoners yet it is most plain that in the resolution it self no such thing is contained but rather expresly the contrary I shall better represent it to your Lordships by reading it then by opening it Then it was read If this Resolution doth resolve any thing it doth indeed upon the matter resolve fully the
predictae doth not always imply or remaunding upon judgment or debate And this answer was given to this of Cesars Case that is the sixt of this Number The seventh is the Case of Iames Demetrius It was 12 Iacobi Rot. 153. Mr Attorney objected that this Demetrius and divers others being Brewers were committed per consilium Domini Regis to the Marshal-sea of the houshould and that upon the commitment so generally returned they were remaunded and that the Entry was immediate remittitur prefato Marescallo hospitii predicti where he observed that immediate shews that the Judges of that time were so resolved of this Question that they remaunded them partly as men that well knew what the Law was herein Here unto the Gentlemen of the House of Commons gave these answers First that the Remittitur in this Case is but as the other in Cesars and so proves nothing against them Secondly that immediate being added to it shews plainly that it was done without debate or any argument or consideration had of it which makes the authority of the presidents to be of no force in point of Law for Judgments and Awards given upon delibration onely and debate are Proofs and Arguments of weight and not any sudden Act of the Court without debate or deliberation And the Entry of immediate being proposed to Mr. Keeling it was confirmed by him that by that Entry it appears by this course that the remaunding of him was the self same day he was brought which as it was said by the Gentlemen of the House of Commons might be at the riseing of the Court or upon advisement and the like And this answer was given to this president of the Brewers The last of the 8. which Mr. Attorney objected is Saltonstals Case in the 13. Iacobi Regis He was committed per mandatum Dominorum Regis de privato Consilio and being returned by the Warden of the Fleet to be so remittitur prisonae predictae and in the 13. Iac in the same year remittitur generally in the Roll and these two make but one Case and are as one president To this the Gentlemen of the House of Commons answered that it is true the Rolls have such Entries of remittitur in them generally but that proves nothing upon the reason before used by them in Cesars Case But also Saltonstall was committed for another cause besides per mandatum Dominorum Consilii for a contempt against an order in Chauncery and that was in the return also And besides the Court as it appears in the Record gave several days to the Warden of the Fleet to mend his return which they would not have done if they had conceived it sufficient because that which is sufficient needs no amendment To this M r. Attorney replyed that they gave him a day to amend his return in respect of that part thereof that concerned the order in Chancery and not in respect of that which was per mandat Concilij But the gentlemen of the house of Commons answered That it appears not any where nor indeed is it likely at all nor can be so reasonably understood because if the other return per mandatum Concilij had been sufficient by it self it appears fully that the Court conceived the return to be insufficient And so the gentlemen of the Commons house concluded that they had a great number of presidents besides the Acts of Parliament and reasons of Common Law agreeable to their resolution and that there was not one president at all that made against them but indeed that almost all that were brought as well against them as for them if rightly understood 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 r Attorney 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 resolution 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 Arcanum Imperii for which he stood committed And to this also 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 touching imprisonment 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 Objections of other nature also he spake of the confidence that was shewed in 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 his Objections which as he conceived had so weakned the Argument of the Commons House that notwithstanding any thing yet Objected they were upon clear reason confident of the truth of their first resolution grounded upon so just