But yet our Eden in this garden of the Common-wealth as there are the flowers of the Sun which are so glorious that they are to be handled onely by royall Majestie so are there also some Daisies and wholsome herbs which every common hand that lives and labours in this garden may pick and gather up and take comfort and repose in them Amongst all which this oculus diei this bona libertas is one and the cheif one Thus much in all humblenesse I presume to speak for the occasion I will now descend to the Question wherein I hold with all dutifull submission to better Iudgments that these Acts of power in imprisoning and confining of his Majesties Subjects in such manner without any declaration of the cause are against the fundamentall Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome And for these reasons thus briefly drawn I conclude 1. The first from the great favour which the Law doth give unto and the great care which it hath ever taken of the liberty and safety of this Kingdome I should not need to take the question in pieces nor handle it in parts dividedly but as one intire because I hold no other difference between imprisonment and confinement then only this that one hath a lesse and streighter the other a greater and larger Prison And this word Confinement not being to be found in any one case of our law if therefore it is become the language of State it is too difficult for me to define To proceed therefore in maintenace of my first reason I find our Law doth so much favour the Subjects liberty of his Person that the body of a man was not liable to be arrested or imprisoned for any other cause at the Common Law but for force and things done against the peace For the Common Law being the preserver of the land so abhorreth force that those that commit it she accompts her capitall enemies therefore did subject their bodies to imprisonment But by the statute of Marlebridge Cap. 24. which was made 35. Hen. 3. who was the eighth King from the Conquest because Bailiffs would not render accounts to their Lords it was enacted that their bodies should be attached And afterwards by the statute 23. Edw. 3.17 who was the 11 King after the Conquest because men made no Conscience to pay their debts it was enacted that their bodies should likewise be attached But before those statutes no many body was subject to be taken or imprisoned otherwise then as aforesaid Whereby it is evident how much the Common Law favoured the Liberty of the Subject and protected his body form imprisonment I will inforce the reason futher by a Rule in law and some cases in Law upon that Rule The Rule is this That Corporalis injuria non recipit aestimationem fuluro So as if the question be not for a wrong done to the person the Law will not compell him to sustain it and afterwards except a remedy for the Law holds no damage a sufficient recompence for a wrong which is corporall The cases in Law to prove this rule shall be these If one menace me in my goods or that he will burn the evidence of my land which he hath in his custody unlesse I make unto him a Bond there I cannot avoyd the Bond by pleading of this menace But if he restrains my person or threatens me with battery or with burning my house which is a protection for my person or with burning an instrument of manumission which is an evidence of my enfranchisement upon these menaces these or dares I shall avoid the bond by plea. So if a Trespassour drives my beast over another Mans ground and I pursue to rescue it there I am a Trespassour to him on whose ground I am But if a man assault my person and I for my safety fly over into another man's ground there I am no Trespassour to him for Quod quis in tuitione sui corporis fecerit jure id fecisse existimatur Nay which is more the Common Law did favour the Liberty not only of Freemen but even of the persons of Bondmen and Villains who haue no right of propriety either in lands or goods as Freemen have And therefore by the Law the Lord could not maim his Villain nay if the Lord commanded another to beat his Villain and he did it the Villain should have his action of Battery against him for it If the Lord made a Lease for yeares to his Villain if he did plead with his Villain if he tendred his Villain to be Champion for him in a Writt of Right any of those acts and many other which I omit were in Law infranchisements and made these Villains Freemen Nay in a suite brought against one if he by Attorney will pleade that he is a Villain the Law is so carefull of Freedome that it dissallowes this plea by Attorny but he must doe it propria persona because it binds his Posterity and bloud to the Villains also And thus much in the generall for my first reason 2. My next reason is drawn by an Argument à majori ad minus I frame it thus If the King have no absolute power over our Lands or Goods then à fortiori not over our Persons to imprison them without declaring the cause for our Persons are much more worth then either Lands or Goods which is proved by what I have said already and Christ himself makes it clear where he saith An non est corpus supra vestimentum Is not the Body more worth then Raiment where the Canonists say that Vestimentum comprehendeth all outward things which are not in the same degree with that which is corporall And our Law maketh it also plain for if a Villain purchase Frank-land this maketh it Villain-land according to the nature of his person but it holds not è converso Frank-land shall not free the person Now that the King hath no absolute power either over our Lands or Goods I will onely at this time but put a case or two for without proof of the Premisses my Conclusion would not follow First for Land The King cannot by his Letters pattents make the son of an Alien heir to his father nor to any other for he cannot disinherit the right heir saith the book nor do no prejudice to the Lord of his Escheat The King by his Prerogative shall pay no toll for things bought in Fairs and Markets but a custome for paying toll to go over the soil and free-holds of another shall bind the King for this toucheth the inheritance of the Subject and therefore the King shall not have so much as a way over his lands without paying and if not a way then certainly not the land it self Next for Goods If a man hath a Jewell in gage for ten pound c. and is attainted for Treason the King shall not have this Jewell if he payes not the ten pound So if Cattel be distreined and the owner of them
afterwards be attainted yet the King shall not have them untill he have satisfied that for which they were distreined And if in these Cases where the owners of the goods are such capitall offendours the King cannot have them much lesse shall he have them when the owner is innocent and no offendour Nay I may well say that almost every leaf and page of all the volumes of our Common Law prove this right of propriety this distinction of meum and tuum aswell between King and Subject as one Subject and another and therefore my Conclusion follows that if the Prerogative extend not neither to Lands nor to Goods then à fortiori not to the Person which is more worth then either lands or goods as I said And yet I agree that by the very law of Nature service of the Person of the Subject is due to his Soveraigne but this must be in such things which are not against the law of Nature but to have the body imprisoned without any cause declared and so to become in bondage I am sure is contrary unto and against the law of Nature and therefore not to be inforced by the Soveraigne upon his Subjects 3. My next reason is drawn ab inutili incommodo For the Statute de frangentibus prisonam made 1 E. 2. is quod nullus qui prisonam fregerit subeat judicium vitae vel membrorum pro fractione prisonae tantum nisi causa pro qua captus imprisonetur tale Iudicium requirat Whence this Conclusion is clearly gathered That if a man be committed to prison without declaring what cause and then if either Malefactour do break the prison or the Gaoler suffer him to escape albeit the prisoner so escaping had committed Crimen laesae majestatis yet neither the Gaoler nor any other that procured his escape by the Law suffer any corporall punishment for setting him at large which if admitted might prove in consequence a matter of great danger to the Common-wealth 4. My next reason is drawn ab Regis honore from that great honour the Law doth attribute unto soveraigne Majesty and therefore the Rule of Law is that Solum Rex hoc non potest facere quod non potest juste agere And therefore if a Subject hath the donation and the King the presentation to a Church whereunto the King presents without the Subjects nomination here the quare impedit lies against the Incumbent and the King is in Law no disturber And Hussey chief Justice in 1 H. 7. fol. 4. saith that Sir Iohn Markham told King Edw. 4. he could not arrest a man either for treason or fellony as a Subject might because that if the King did wrong the party could not have his Action against him What is the reason that an Action of false imprisonment lies against the Sheriff if he doth not return the Kings Writ by which he hath taken the body of the Subject but this because the Writ doth breviter enarrare causam captionis which if it doth not it shall abate and is void in Law and being returned the party when he appears may know what to answer and the Court upon what to judge And if the Kings Writ under his great Seal cannot imprison the Subject unlesse it contains the cause shall then the Kings warrant otherwise doe it without containing the cause that his Judges upon return thereof may likewise judge of the same either to remain or judge the partie imprisoned I should argue this point more closely upon the statute of Magnae Charta 29. quod nullus liber homo imprisonetur the statute of West 1. cap. 15. for letting persons to bail and the Judgements lately given in the Kings Bench but the later of these statutes referring having been by that honourable Gent. to whom the Professours of the Law both in this and all succeding ages are and will be much bound already expounded unto us and that also fortified by those many contemporary Expositions and Judgements by him learnedly cited and there being many learned Lawyers here whose time I will not waste who were present and some of them perhaps of councell in the late Cause adjudged in the Kings Bench where you to whose person I now speak do well know I was absent being then of councel in a cause in another Court and my practice being in the Country farre remote from the treasure of Antiquity and Records conducing to the clearing of this point Therefore the narrowness of my understanding commends unto me sober ignorance rather then presumptuous knowledge and also commands me no further to trouble your Patience But I will conclude with that which I find reported of Sir Iohn Davis who was the Kings Serjeant and so by the duty of his place would no doubt maintain to his uttermost the Prerogatives of the King his royall Master and yet it was by him thus said in those Reports of his upon the case of Tavistry Customs That the Kings of England alwayes have had a Monarchy Royall and not a Monarchy Seignorall where under the first saith he the Subjects are Free-men and have propriety in their goods and free-hold and inheritance in their Lands but under the later they are as Villains and Slaves and have proprietie in nothing And therefore saith he when a Royall Monarch makes a new Conquest yet if he receives any of his Nations ancient Inhabitants into his protection they and their heirs after them shall enjoy their Lands and Liberties according to the Law And there he voucheth this President and Judgement following given before William the Conquerour himself viz. That one Sherborn at the time of the Conquest being owner of a Castle and lands in Norfolk the Conquerour gave the same to one Warren a Norman and Sherborn dying the Heir clayming the same by descent according to the Law it was before the Conquerour himself adjudged for the Heir and that the gift thereof by the Conquerour was void If then it were thus in the Conquerour's time by his own sentence and judgement and hath so continued in all the successions of our Kings ever since what doubt need we have but that his most excellent Majestie upon our humble petition prostrated at his feet which as was well said is the best passage to his heart will vouchsafe unto us our ancient Liberties and Birthrights with a through reformation of this and other just grievances And so I humbly crave pardon of this honourable House that I have made a short Lesson long Sir Benjamin Ruddier's Speech March 22. 1627. Mr. Speaker OF the mischiefs that have lately fallen upon us by the late distractions here is every man sensible and that may ensue the like which God forbid we may easily see and too late repent The eyes of Christendome are upon us and as we speed here so go the Fortunes of our selves our Friends and of our Religion That the Dangers were not reall but pretended we all heartily wish but feel the contrary
I conceive it plain these Customers took the goods in their own right not in the Kings In this Priviledge is plainly broken wherein it is easily determined Mr. Banks In this case there is no interposing of the Kings Right and the King this Parliament hath declared as much That the Courts at Westminster do grant 12 days priviledge to any man to inform his Councel much more the Court of Parliament are to have their Priviledge The Kings Command cannot extend to authorize any man to break the Priviledges no more than it will warrant an entrie upon any mans Land without process of Law Mr. Soliciter If the King have no Right how can he make a Lease then this pretended interest of the Customers must needs be void and therefore the goods must not be taken on their own right but in the right of the King Mr. Selden If there were any right the pretended right were in the Subject First whether Priviledge in goods Secondly whether the right were in the Customers onely Thirdly whether priviledge against the King 1. If the Lords have no priviledge in Parliaments for their goods then have they no priviledge at all for they are priviledged in their persons out of Parliament 2. For the point of interest it is plain no kind of Covenant can alter the interest and questionless had the cause in the Exchequer appeared to the Barons as it doth to us they would never have proceeded as they did 3. If our goods may be seized into the Exchequer be it right or wrong we were then as good have nothing Sir Nath. Ritch 〈…〉 recorded the last Session and citeth other presidents in this House that a servant of a Member in Parliament ought to have priviledge in his goods Mr. Noy saith that these Commissioners had neither Commission nor Command to seize Therefore without doubt we may proceed safely to the other question That the priviledge is broken by the Customers without relation to any Commission or Command of the King Secretarie Cook saith It is in the Commission to seize but the Commission being read it is not found to be there Chancellor of the Dutchie saith Mr. Dawes mentioned that he seized these goods by virtue of a Commission and other Warrants remaining in the hands of Sir Iohn Elliot that therefore these Warrants may be seen whether there be no command to seize these goods Sir Nathaniel Ritch This days debate much joyeth me specially the motion made by Mr. Noy whereby it is plain we have a way open to go to this question without relation to the Kings Commission or Command and desire it in respect there appears nothing before us to incumber the question Chancellor of the Dutchie desires again these Warrants may be look into before we go to the question Mr. Kirton In respect this Honorable Gentleman presseth this so far that it may appear with what judgement this House hath proceeded Mr. Glanveil I consent these Warrants be sent for and read but withall if any thing arise that may produce any thing of ill consequence let it be considered from whence it doth come The Privie Councellers are contented with this Motion The Warrants being sent for and read it is plain there is no Warrant to seize Mr. Kirton If now there be any thing of doubt I desire those Honorable persons may make their objections Chancellor of the Dutchie I rejoyce when I can go to the Court able to justifie your proceedings I confess I see nothing now but that we may safely proceed to the Question Mr. Secretarie Cook saith as much Mr. Hackwell argueth against Priviledge in time of Prorogation Mr. Noy saith he had no doubt but that Priviledge was in force in time of Prorogation untill he heard this Argument of Prorogation of Mr. Hackwell and saith that he hath nothing from him yet that doth alter his opinion and citeth a cause wherein the Lords House hath this verie Prorogation adjudged the Priviledge Mr. Hackwell saith he is glad to hear it is so and he is now of the same opinion Decided by Question That Mr. Rolles ought to have Priviledge of Parliament for his goods seised 30 Octob. 5 Iac. and all sithence This Committee is adjourned untill Munday and the Customers to attend The Protestation of the COMMONS in Parliament on Munday 2. Mar. 1628. 1. WHosoever shall bring in an Innovation in Religion or by favour or countenance seek to extend or introduce Poperie or Arminianisme or other Opinion differing from the true and orthodox profession of our Church shall be reputed a Capital enemie to this Kingdom and Common-wealth 2. Whosoever shall counsel or advise the taking or leavying of the Subsedies of Tonage and Poundage not being granted by Parliament or shall be an Actor or an Instrument therein shall likewise be reputed an Innovator in the Government and a Capital enemie to the Kingdom and Common-wealth 3. If any Merchant or other person whatsoever shall voluntarily yield or pay the said Subsedie of Tonnage or Poundage not being granted by Parliament he shall likewise be reputed a Betrayer of the Liberties of England and an enemie to the same THE KINGS SPEECH in the House of PARLIAMENT Mar. 10. 1628. to Dissolve it My LORDS I Never came here upon so unpleasing occasion it being for the Dissolving of a PARLIAMENT therefore many may wonder why I did not rather choose to do this by my Commission it being the general Maxim of Kings to lay harsh commands by their Ministers themselves onely executing pleasing things But considering that Justice is as well in Commanding of Virtue as Punishing of Vice I thought it necessarie to come here to day to declare to you my Lords and all the world That it was onely the disobedient carriage of the Lower House that hath caused this Dissolution at this time and that you My Lords are so far from being causers of it that I have as much comfort in your Obedience manifested by all your carriage towards me as I have cause to distaste their proceedings Yet that I may be clearly understood I must needs say they do mistake me wondrously that think I lay this fault equally on all the Lower House for I know there are many there as dutifull Loyal Subjects as any are in the world I know that it was onely some Viâ—pers among them that did cast this mist of disobedience before their eyes although there were some there that could not be infected with this Contagion insomuch that some by their speaking which indeed was the general fault on the last day of the House did shew their obedience To conclude my Lords as those ill-affected persons must look for their reward so you that are here of the Higher House may justly claim from me that protection and favour that a good King bears to his Loyal and Faithfull Subjects and Nobilitie Now my Lords execute that which I Command you Lord KEEPER MY Lords and Gentlemen of the House of Commons the KINGS Majestie
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 grieved 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 grand Councell and that they there find suretie to pursue their suggestions and incurre the same paine that the other should have had if he were attainted in case that their suggestions be found evil and that then processe of the Law be made against them without being taken and imprisoned against the forme of the said Charter and other Statutes Here the Law of the Land in the grand Charter is explained to be without processe of the Law 42. E. 3. ca. 3. At the request of the Commons by their Petitions put forth in this Parliament to eschew mischiefs and damage done to divers of his Commons by false accusers which oftentimes have made their accusation more for revenge and singular benefit then for the profit of the King or of his people which accused persons some have been taken and sometimes caused to come before the Kings Councell by writ and otherwise upon grievous paine against the Law It is assented and accorded for the good governance of the Commons that no man be put to answer without presentment before Justices or matter of Record or by due processe or writ originall according to the old Law of the Land And if any thing henceforth be done to the contrary it shall be void in Law and holden for errour But this is better in the Parliament Roll where the Petition and Answer which make the Act are set down at large 42. E. 3. Rot. Parliament num 12. The Petition Because that many of the Commons are hurt and destroyed by false accusers who make their accusations more for their revenge and particular gaine then for the profit of the King or his people and those that are accused by them some have been taken and others have been made to come before the Kings Councell by writ or other Commandment of the King upon grievous paines contrary to the Law That it would please our Lord the King and his good Councell for the just government of his people to ordain that if hereafter any accuser propose any matter for the profit of the King that the same matter be sent to the Justices of the one Bench or the other or the affaires to be enquired and determined according to the Law And if it concern the accuser or partie that he take his suit at the Common Law and that no man be put to answer without presentment before Justices or matter of Record and by due processe originall writ according to the ancient Law of the Land And if any thing henceforward be done to the contrarie that it be void in Law and held for errour Here by due processe and originall writ according to the Law of the Land is meant the same thing as per legem terrae in Magna Charta and the abuse was they were put to answer by the commandment of the King The Kings Answer is thus Because that this
brought thither by severall writs of Habeas Corpus with the same return I being assigned by the Court of Kings Bench upon a petition delivered to be of Councell with Sir Iohn Corbet did move that Sir Iohn Corbet might be discharged of his imprisonment and put in bail for I did conceive that the return of this Habeas corpus was insufficient both in the matter of the return and in the manner of the return and so there ought not to be a longer detaining of Sir Iohn Corbet in prison for as unto the manner of the return it is not laid down precisely that Sir Iohn Corbet is detained in prison by the speciall commandment of the King signified by the warrant of the Lords of the Councell the which is not a direct affirmation that he is detained by the speciall command of the King but that the Lords of the Councel by their warrant have signified unto him that he was committed and still detained by the speciall command of the King And howsoever the Lords of the Councell had signified that he was detained by the commandment of the King yet it may be he was not detained by the commandment of the King for their signification of the same by warrant may be untrue and the warrant of the Lords of the Councell that is returned in haec verba importeth that the keeper of the Gatehouse rather took upon him to return that was signified unto him by the warrant of the Lords of the Councell that Sir Iohn Corbet was committed and detained by the speciall commandment of the King because if the keeper had taken upon him to affirm it upon his return then needed he not to have returned the warrants of the Lords of the Councell and the warrant it self sheweth that he had onely his information from the Lords of the Councell for their warrant is to let the keeper know that both the first commitment and this direction for the continuing of him in prison were and are by his Majesties speciall commandment and I do not see as this return is made that an accord upon the case can lie upon the keeper of the Gatehouse if S r. Iohn Corbet was not committed nor detained by the special commandment of the King so long as the warrant of the Lords of the Councell be returned as it was made because he doth return the same as the significavit of the Lords by their warrant Register 65. the writ of Excommunication Capiend goeth Rex vicecom Lincoln S. significavit nob venerabilis Pater Henricus Lincolniensis Episcopus per Literas suas Patentes quod R. suus Parochial propter suam manifestā cotumac authoritate ipsius Episc ordin excom est nec se vult per censuram Ecclesiasticam justiciar c. tibi praecipimus quod praedict R. per corpus suum secundum consuetud Angliae justic c. and yet no man will say that there is an information of the King that R. is excommunicated but onely that the Bishop of Lincoln had signified unto him that R. was excommunicated and in Fitz. Nat. Br 663. and Register 65. it appears that the form of the writ of Excommunication deliberand is Rex Vice com London Salut Cum Thom Iay allutar London qui nuper ad denuntiat venerabil Patris Archiep Eborum pro contumaciis suis ratione contractus in civitate nostra Eborum habit ut dicebat tanquam excom claves Ecclesiae contemnent per corp suum secundum consuetud Augliae per te justic praecepimus donec c. esset satisfact eid Archiepiscopo ad satisfaciendum Deo sanctae ecclesiae sufficientem exposuit cautionem per quod eidem Archiepiscopus offic Archdiac London mutuae vicissitudin obtentu scripsit ut ipsum absolvat ab excom senten memorata sicut idem Archiepiscopus per Literas suas Patentes nob significavit Tibi praecipimus quod praed Thom cum tibi constare poterit ipsum ab excom praedict per praedict Official absolvi à Prison qua detinetur si ea occasione non alia detineat in eadem sine dilatione deliberari fac And yet it cannot be said that although the King recited in his writ that the Archbishop had signified unto him that he had written unto the Officiall of the Archdeacon that the King said that the Archbishop had written for he doth not affirm so much precisely but onely referreth himself unto the Certificate of the Archbishop Plowden 122 Buckley and Rivers case it is put that if a man will bring an action of debt upon an obligation and declare that it appears by the obligation that the defendant stood bound to the plaintiffe in twenty pounds the which he hath not paid this declaration is not good insomuch as it is not alledged by matter in fact that he was bound unto him in twenty pound but the deed is alledged by recitall onely 21. Ed. 4.43 Plowden Com 126. 143. Browning and Beestons case The Abbot of Waltham being appointed collector of a Disme granted unto the King in discharge of himself in the Exchequer pleadeth Quo inter recordat Ter Pasc. anno 25. domini Regis Edvardi 1. inter alia continetur quod R. 2. had granted unto the predecessors of the said Abbot that he nor any of his successours should be any collectors of any dismes to be granted afterwards and it was adjudged that this plea was ill For the saying it was contained among the Records it is no precise affirmation that the King had granted to his predecessors that they should be discharged of the collecting any dismes but it is onely an allegation by way of recitall and not by precise affirmation the plea may not be good 2 3 Mar. Dier 117. 118. the plaintiffes reply in barre of all pleadeth that Iohn Abbot of W. was seised of his lands in right of his Church and so seised by the assent of the tenant by indenture 14 Hen. 4. testat quod praedict Abbat convent demiserunt tradiderunt unto the plaintiffe and ruled that this form of pleading was ill insomuch as it was not alledged by precise affirmation quod demiserunt sed indentura testatur quod demiserunt which is not sufficient insomuch as it is onely an allegation by way of recitall that the Indenture doth witnesse and the same Indenture may witnesse so much and yet not be a demise And if in pleading there must be direct affirmation of the matter alledged then à fortiore in a return which must be more precise then in pleading and so by all the cases I have formerly touched it appeareth that this return is no expresse affirmation of the keeper of the Gate-house that Sir Iohn Corbet is detained in prison by the speciall commandment of the King but onely an affirmation of the Lords of the Councell who had signified unto him that his detainment in prison was by speciall command of the King The return which ought to be certain and punctuall and affirmative
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 desires 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 legem terrae 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 nullus 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 dic in diem de horâ 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
without to retire further in and whether it will be a means to weaken the Pallizadoes or any way open the passage to your judgments The answer to the Articles propounded by the Lord General and the rest of the Councel of War 1. TO the first we answer that by reason of the shallowness of the water the ships will not be able to come so near as the Pallizados whereby to make any breach through for the victuallers 2. To the second we answer that nothing can be done by our forces here to gain any passage to the Town 3. To the third we answer that by reason our forces cannot come so near the Pallizadoes to make any breach then it is not for the victuallers to venter in with their fire-ships so no breach being made the victualler will come into the Enemies hands 4. To the fourth we answer that the dishonour will be greater if there be any loss in that case 5. To the fifth we answer that in regard of their forces both by Sea and Land that no breach can be made as above said our opinion is it will be to no purpose to send any ships in We hold it not fitting to bring his Majesties ships in regard they shall be exposed to shallow water and danger of our Enemies Forts upon the Land which will be an hazard and loss of his Majesties ships To the seventh and the conclusion mentioned in your Lordships Articles we answer that if we should force the ships that lye without the Pallizado on the ground It will rather make the Pallizado more strong than any way to gain any passage through If any man can shew any better reasons than we here alleadge to those Articles we shall be ready and willing to imbrace it and will endeavour our selves so far as our lives THE TRANSACTIONS Of the second SESSIONS IN PARLIAMENT ANNO 1628. THus having finished the first Session of this unhappy Parliament where the seeds were sowen of those discontents which afterwards grew up and lately have been reaped allmost to the ruine of our Nation Now followeth the Breviary or abstract of the second Session little different from the former in sad success But we must confess that those two Tracts though joyned in one volume for the perfecting of the History are not the Sons of the same Father proceed not from the observations and collections of the same Authour And as they differ in the Authour so also in the fashion and quantity thereof the former Session may be said to be done at length this in figures the former had the maine Mass and Bulk this the spirits and infusions of the passages therein Yet as a low man is as much man though not so great a man as one of a higher stature so may I say there is as certain truth in this as in the former relation though there be not so much of it I mean it is as faithfully though not so fully reported Indeed the conscientious Reader being a true Englishman may here satisfie himself with the sadness of the transactions as shortly summed up who otherwise might surfet with sorrow if every particular were related in its full dimensions Thus commending both this and the other to the carefull perusing of the judicious Reader I fear not his departing from this Book with an unsatisfied who cometh thereunto with an unprejudiced judgment A true RELATION Of every days proceedings since the beginning of this SESSION and what was spoken by every man Tuesday Ianuary 20. UPon Tuesday being the first day of the Parliament nothing was done but the setting of the Commitees Wensday 21. UPon this day it was ordered that Mr. Selden and others should see if the Petition of Right and his Majesties answer thereunto were inrolled in the Parliament Rolles and the Courts at Westminster as his Majestie sent them word the last Session they should be and also in what manner they were entered which was done accordingly and Mr. Selden made report to the house that his Majesties speech made the last day of the Session in the upper House is also entered by his Majesties command Mr. Pym HEreupon Mr. Pym moved that the debate hereof should be deferred till Tuesday next by reason of the fewness of the House Sir Iohn Elliot TO which Sir Iohn Elliot answered this is now raised concerns the honour of the House and the liberty of the Kingdom it is true it deserves to be deferred till there be a full House but it is good to prepare things I finde it is a great point I desire a select Committee may enter into consideration thereof and also how other liberties of the Kingdom be invaded I finde in the country the Petition of Right Printed indeed but with an answer that never gave any satisfaction I desire a Committee may consider thereof and present it to the House and that the Printer be sent for to give satisfaction to the House by what warrant it was printed Which was ordered Mr. Shelden FOr this Petition of Right It is known how lately it hath been violated since our last meeting The liberties for life person and free-hold how they have been invaded and have not some been committed contrary to that Now we knowing these invasions must take notice of it For liberties for state we know of an order made in the Exchequer that a Sheriff was commanded not to execute a replevim and mens goods are taken and must not be restored whereas no man ought to lose life or limb but by the Law hath not one lately lost his ears meaning Savage that was censured in the Star-Chamber by an arbitrary sentence and judgement Next they will take away our Arms and then our lives Let all see we are sencible of these customes creeping upon us let us make a just presentation hereof to his Majesty Norton the King's Printer was brought to the Barr and asked by what warrant the additions to the Petition were printed He answered that there was a warrant as he thought from the King himself And being asked whether there were not some Copies printed without additions he answered there were some but they were suppressed by some warrant Sir Iohn Elliot DEsired some clearer satisfaction might be made and that he might answer directly by what warrant Whereupon he was called in again who said he did not remember the particular but sure he was there was a warrant Tuesday 22. ONe Mr. Roules a Merchant and a Member of the House informed the House that his goods were seized by the Customers for refusing to pay Custome by them demanded although he told them he would pay what was adjudged by Law Whereupon Sir Robert Phillips spake as followeth Sir Robert Phillips BY this information you see the unfortunateness of the times and how full time it was that this Assembly should meet to serve his Majesty and to preserve our selves and I am confident we come hither with fullness of both and all shall conduce to a