in and answer and forejudged of the same by way of Law and if any thing be done against the same it shall be redressed and holden for nought 37 Ed. 3. cap. 10. although it be contained in the great Charter that no man be taken or imprisoned or put out of his freehold without due processe of the law neverthelesse divers persons make false suggestions to the King himself as well for malice as otherwise whereof the King is often grieved and divers of the Realm put in great damages contrary to the form of the same Statute Wherefore it is ordained that all they that make such suggestions be sent with their suggestions to the Chancellour or Treasurer and they and every of them find sureties to pursue their suggestions and endure the same pain that the other should have had if in case that his suggestion be found untrue and that then processe of the law be made against them without being taken or imprisoned against the form of the same Charter and other statutes So that it appears by these severall statutes that such commandments of the King as are grounded upon suggestion either made to himself or to his Councell for the imprisonment of a man are against the law Fourthly I find that there is a commandment of the King which is made under his hand with his signet for in the fourth and the fifth of Philip and Mary Dier 162. where the statute of 1 Rich. 2. cap. 11. restraineth the Warden of the Fleet for letting any man at large that is in upon judgement at the suit of any man except it be by writ or other commandment of the King It was doubted whether the Queen by letter under her hand and privy signet doth give commandment to the Warden of the Fleet to suffer a man that is there in execution to go about his businesse or the affaires of the Queen whether this be a warrantable command or not within the Statute and the Law hath alwayes been conceived upon that book that such a commandment is not warrantable by Law and if such a command will not serve the turn to give unto a man his liberty which the Lord favoureth and had the countenance of an Act of Parliament for the doing of it then I conceive it should be a more strong case the King should not have power by his commandment to imprison a man without due processe of the Law and restrain him of his liberty when there had been so many Acts of Parliament made for the liberty of the subjects Fifthly I do find that there is the commandment of the King which is by his writ under the Great Seal or the seal of the Court out of which it issueth Regist. f. 69. 70. in the writ de cautione admittenda I find the words mandatum Regis expounded to be breve Regis for the writ goeth Rex vic Salutem Cum nuper ad requisitionem S. de Isle Canonici Lincol. venerabilis Patris H. Lincoln Episcopi ipso in remotis agente Vicarii general per Literas suas patentes nobis significantis Nicho. B. dict Lincoln Dioc. propter manifestam contumaciam Authoritate ipsius Episcopi Ordinar excommunicat esse nec si velle c. vobis praeceperimus quod praefat c. satisfactum ex parte ipsius N. qui virtute mandati nostri praedict per vos Capt. in Prison nostra de Newgate detent existit c. nos nolentes quod praefat N. per breve nostrum praedict via praecludatur c. prosequi possit in forma Iuris maxim c. integer esse debeat vobis praecipimus quod scire c. quod sit c. quare praedict N. à Prisona praedict deliberari non debeat Rex Iusticiar suis de Banco salut Cum nos nuper ad significationem S. de Isle c. usque ibi excommunicat extitisse nec se velle c. esset satisfactum ex parte ipsius N. virtute mandati nostri praed capt in Prisona nostra de Newgate tunc detenti c. nolentes eo praetextu praefato N. per breve nostrum praed via praecludat quo minus appellac suae negotium c. processerat appellant statut c. per breve nostrum praeceperimus praefat vic quod scire facerent c. signific consult circumspect in Placitis per breve praedict coram vobis pendentibus procedere valeatis secundum legem consuetudinem Regni nostri Stamf. 72.5 E. 3. c. 8. 1 E. c. 3.9 saith that every Capias in a personall action is a Commandment of the King for it is Praecipimus tibi quod capias c. and yet the defendant as there it is said is replevisable by the Common Law 7 R. 20. a. Calvins case saith that there are two kind of writs viz. brevia mandatoria remedialia brevia mandatoria non remdeialia breuia mandatoria remedialia are writs of Right Formedon c. debts trespasses and shortly all writs reall and personall whereby the party wronged is to recover somewhat and to be remedied for that wrong which is done unto him Sixthly I do finde by our books of Law and by the Register that this speciall mandatum domini Regis is expounded to be his writ and that the Law taketh no notice of any other speciale mandatum then by this writ the which being so when the return is made that he is imprisoned and detained in prison by the speciall commandment of the King how can the Court adjudge upon this return that Sir Iohn Corbet ought to be kept in prison and not to be bailed when the nature of the speciall commandment is not set forth in the return whereby it may appear unto the Court that he is not bailable In Bracton c. 12.112 you shall see a writ reciting Praecipimus tìbi quod non implacites nec implacitari permittas talem de libero tenemento suo in tali villa sine speciali praecepto nostro vel Capitalis Iusticiar nostri And the reason of it there is given quia nemo de libero tenemento sine brevi sive libello conventionali nisi gratis voluerit respondebit So as the exception of speciall commandment by the very book appeareth to be breve sive libellus conventionalis Regist. 271. the writ of Manucaption goeth in this manner Rex vic Salut Cum nuper assignaverimus dilectos fideles nostros A. B. C. D. ad inquisitiones de forstallariis transgressionibus contra formam statuti dudum apud Winton editi in com tuo faciend ad illos quos inde culpabiles invenirent capiend in Prisona nostra salvo custod faciend donec aliud inde praecepissemus quod C. D. E. pro hujusmodi forstallamentis transgressionibus unde coram praefat A. B. C. indict fuerint capt in Prisona de L. detent exist à qua delibera ri non possunt sine mandato nostro
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
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
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
the Commons were in force and that Magna Charta did extend most properly to the King But he said First that some of them are in generall words and therefore conclude nothing but are to be expounded by the Presidents and others that be more particular are applyed to the suggestions of Subjects and not to the Kings Command simplie of it self Hereunto was answered That the Statutes were as direct as could be which appeareth by the reading of them and that though some of them speak of suggestions of the Subject yet others do not and those that do are as effectuall for that they are in equall reason a commitment by Command of the King being of as great force when it moveth by a suggestion from a Subject as when the King takes notice of the cause himself the rather for that Kings seldome intermeddle with matters of this nature but by information from some of their Subjects Secondly M r Attorney objected that per legem terrae in Magna Charta which is the foundation of this Question cannot be understood for processe of the Law and originall Writs for that in all Criminall proceedings no originall Writ is used at all but every Constable may arrest either for fellony or for breach of the peace or to prevent a breach of the peace without processe or originall Writ and it were hard the King should not have the power of a Constable the Statutes cited by the Commons make processe of the Law and Writ originall to be all one The answer of the Commons to this Objection was That they do not intend originall Writs only by the Law of the Land but all other legall processe which comprehends the whole proceedings of Law upon Cause other then the triall by Jurie Iudicium parium unto which it is opposed Thus much is imported ex vitermini out of the word processe and by the true acceptation thereof in the Statutes which have been urged by the Commons to maintain their Declaration and most especially in the Statute 25. E. 3. cap. 4. where it appeareth that a man ought to be brought into answer by the course of the Law having former mention made of processe made by originall Writ And in 28. E. 3. cap. 3. by the course of the Law is rendered by due processe of the Law and 36. E. 3. Rot. Parl. num 20. the Petition of the Commons saith That no man ought to be imprisoned by speciall Command without Indictment or other due processe to be made by the Law 37. E. 3. cap. 18. calleth the same thing Processe of the Law 42. E. 3. cap. 3. stileth it by due processe and Writ originall where the conjunctive must be taken for the disjunctive which change is ordinary in the exposition of the Statutes and Deeds to avoid inconvenience to make it stand with the rest and with reason And it may be collected that by the Law of the Land in Magna Charta by the Course of the Law in 25. E. 3. by due processe of the Law in 28. E. 3. other due processe to be made by the Law in 36. E. 3. processe of the Law 37. E. 3. and by due processe and originall Writ in 42. E. 3. are meant one and the same thing the latter of these Statutes referring alwayes to the former and that all of them import any due and regular proceeding of Law upon a Cause other then the triall by Jury And this doth appeare in Coke 10.74 in the case of the Marshalsey and Coke 11.99 Iames Bagg's case where it is understood of giving Jurisdiction by Charter or prescription which is the ground of a proceeding by course of Law and in Selden's Notes on Fortescue fol. 29. where it is expounded for Law wager which is likewise a triall at Law by the oath of the partie differing from that by Jurie And it doth truly comprehend these and all other regular proceedings in Law upon Cause which gives authoritie to the Constable to arrest upon Cause And if this should not be the true exposition of these words per begem terrae the Kings Councell were desired to declare their meaning which they never offered to do and yet certainly these words were not put into the Statute without some intention of consequence Whereupon M r Serjeant Ashley offered an interpretation of them thus Namely that there were divers Lawes of this Realme as the Common Law the Law of the Chauncerie the Ecclesiasticall Law the Law of the Admiraltie or Marine Law the Law of Merchants the Martiall Law and the Law of State and that these words per legem terrae do extend to all those Lawes The answer To this it was answered that we read of no Law of State and that none of these Lawes can be meant there save the Common Law which is the principall and generall Law and is alwayes understood by way of excellency when mention is made of the Law of the Land generally and that though each of the other Lawes which are admitted into this Kingdome by Custome or Act of Parliament may justly be called a Law of the Land yet none of them can have the preeminence to be stiled the Law of the Land And no Statute Law-book or other Authoritie printed or unprinted could be shewen to prove that the Law of the Land being generally mentioned was ever intended of any other Law then the Common Law and yet even by these other Lawes a man may not be committed without a cause expressed But it standeth with the rule of other legall expositions that per legem terrae must be meant the Common Law which is the generall and universall Law by which men hold their inheritances And therefore if a man speak of Escuage generally it is understood as Littleton observeth of the incertain Escuage which is a Knights-Service Tenure for the defence of the Realm by the body of the Tenant in time of warre and not of the certain Escuage which giveth only a contribution in money and no personall service And if a Statute speakes of the Kings Courts of Record it is meant only of the 4 at Westm. by way of excellency Coke 6.20 Gregorie's Case So the Canonists by the excommunication simplie spoken do intend the greater excommunication and the Emperour in his Institutions saith that the Civil Law being spoken generally is meant of the Civil Law of Rome though the Law of every City is a Civil Law as when a man names the Poet the Grecians understood Homer the Latinists Virgil. Secondly admit that per legem terrae extends to all the Lawes of the Realm yet a man must not be committed by any of them but by the due proceedings that are exercised by those Lawes and upon a Cause delivered Again it was urged that the King was not bound to expresse the cause of imprisonment because there may be in it matter of State not fit to be revealed for a time lest the Confederates thereupon make meanes to escape the hands
est habet Literas Vicecancellario quod ponatur per ballium usque ad primam Assisam si ea occasione c. Teste Rege apud Cestr. vicessimo octavo die Iunii Radulphus Cosyn captus detentus in Gaola Regis Lanc. pro morte Will. filius Simonis Le Porter unde rectatus est habet Literas Regis Vic. Lanc. quod ponatur per ballium usque ad primum Assisam si ea occasione c. Teste Rege apud Shene tertio die Iunii M. 7. Iohannes de Githerd captus detentus in prisona Regis Eborac pro morte Matth. Sampson de Eborac unde rectatus est habet Literas Regis vicecomiti Ebor. quod traditur per ballium usque ad primam Assisam dat apud Langele quinto die Aprilis Clauss anno tertio Edw. 2. M. 3. Adam le Pepper captus detentus in Gaola Regis Ebor. pro morte Henrici Le Sumer de Estricke Deponend in ballium unde rectatus est habet Literas Regis Vicecomiti Ebor. quod ponatur per ballium usque ad primam Assisam Teste Rege apud Westm. septimo die Februarii N. 14. Margaret uxor Willielmi Calbot capta detenta in Gaola Regis Norwici pro morte Agnet filiae Willielmi Calbot Maltidae sororis ejusdem Agnetis unde rectata est habet Literas Regis Vicecomiti Norfolciae quod ponatur per ballium T. Rege apud Shene 22. die Ianuarii N. 16. Iohannes Frere captus detentus in Goala Regis Exon. pro morte Ade de Egolegh unde rectatus est habet Literas Regis Vicecomiti Devon quod ponatur per ballium Teste Rege apud Westm. septimo die Decembris Clauss anno 4. E. 2. M. 7. Robertus Sheren captus detentus in Gaola Regis de Colchester pro morte Roberti Le Maigne unde rectatus est habet Literas Regis Vicecomiti Essex quod ponatur per ballium usque ad primam Assisam dat 22 die Maii. M. 8. Willielmus filius Roberti Le Fishere de Shirbourne captus detentus in Goala Regis Ebor. pro morte Roberti Le Monnez de Norton unde rectatus est habet Literas Regis Vicecomiti Ebor quod ponatur per ballium usque ad primam Assisam dat 25 die Aprilis Clauss anno 4. Edw. 2. N. 22. Thomas Ellis de Stamford captus detentus in prisona Regis Lincoln pro morte Mich. filii Willielmi de Foddering unde rectatus est habet Literas Regis Vicecomiti Lincoln quod ponatur per ballium usque ad primam Assisam Teste rege apud novum Monasterium octavo die Septembris The Argument which by command of the House of Commons was made at their first conference with the Lords touching the Liberty of the person of every Free-man out of Presidents of Record and Resolutions of Judges in former times by M r Selden My Lords YOur Lordships have heard from the Gentleman that last spake a great part of the grounds upon which the House of Commons after mature deliberation proceeded to that cleer resolution touching the right of Liberty of their persons The many Acts of Parliament which are the written Lawes of the Land and are expresly in the point have been read and opened and such objections as have been by some made to them and some other objections also made out of other Acts of Parliament have been cleerly answered It may seem now perhaps my Lords that little remaines needfull to be further added for the enforcement and maintenance of so fundamentall and established a right and liberty belonging to every Freeman of the Kingdome But in the examination of Questions of Law or Right besides the Lawes or Acts of Parliament that ought chiefly to regulate and direct every mans judgement whatsoever hath been put in practise to the contrarie there are commonly also used former Judgements or Presidents and they indeed have been so used sometimes that the weight of Reason of Law and Acts of Parliament hath been laid by and resolutions have been made and that in this very point only upon the interpretation and apprehension of Presidents But Presidents my Lords are good media or proofs of illustration or confirmation when they agree with the expresse Law but they can never be proof enough to overthrow any one Law much lesse seven severall Acts of Parliament as the number of them is for this point The House of Commons therefore taking into consideration that in this Question being of so high a nature that never any exceeded it in any Court of Justice whatsoever all the severall wayes of just examination of the truth should be used have also most carefully informed themselves of all former Judgements or Presidents concerning this great point either way and have been no lesse carefull of the due preservation of his Majesties just Prerogative then of their own Rights The Presidents here are of two kinds either meerly matter of Record or else the former resolutions of Judges after solemn debate in the point This part that concernes the Presidents the House of Commons have commanded me to present to your Lordships which I shall as briefly as I may so I shall do it also faithfully and perspicuously To that end my Lords before I come to the particulars of any of these Presidents I shall first remember to your Lordships that which serves as a generall key for the opening and true apprehension of all them of Record without which key no man unlesse he be verst in the Entries and Court of the King's Bench can possibly understand them In all cases my Lords where any right or Liberty belongs to the Subject by any positive Law written or unwritten if there were not also a remedy by Law for the enjoying or regaining of this right or Libertie when it is violated or taken from him the positive Law were in vain and to no purpose were it for any man to have right in any land or other Inheritance if there were not a known remedy that is an Action or Writ by which in so me court of ordinary Justice he might recover it And in this case of right of Liberty of the Person if there were not a remedy in the Law for regaining it when it is restrained it were to no purpose to speak of Lawes that ordain it should not be restrained Therefore in this case also I shall first observe the remedy that every Free-man is to use for the regaining of his Liberty when he is against Law imprisoned that so upon the legall course and form to be held in using that remedy the Presidents or Judgements upon it for all Presidents of Record rise out of this Remedy may be easily understood There are in the the Law divers remedies for enlargement of a Freeman imprisoned as the Writs of odio atia and of homine replegiando besides the common and most known Writ of habeas Corpus or Corpus cum causa
as it is called also The first two are Writs to be directed to the Sheriff of the Countie and lye only in some particular cases with which it would be untimely for me to trouble your Lordships because they concern not that which is committed to my charge But that Writ of habeas Corpus or Corpus cum causa is the highest remedy in Law for him that is imprisoned by the speciall command of the King or of the Lords of the Councell without shewing cause of the commitment Neither is there any such thing in the Lawes of this Land as a Petition of Right to be used in such cases for the Liberty of the person nor is there any other legall Course to be taken for enlargement in such cases howsoever the contrary hath upon no ground or colour of Law been pretended Now my Lords if any man be so imprisoned by any such command or otherwise in any prison whatsoever through England and desire either by himself or any other in his behalf this Writ of habeas Corpus for the purpose in the Court of King's Bench the Writ is to be granted to him and ought not to be denied him no otherwise then any ordinary originall Writ in the Chauncery or other common processe of Law may be denyed Which amongst other things the House of Commons hath resolved also upon mature deliberation and I was commanded to let your Lordships know so much This Writ is to be directed to the Keeper of the Prison in whose custody the Prisoner remaines commanding him that at a certain day he bring in the body of the Prisoner ad subjiciendum recipiendum juxta quod Curia consideraverit una cum causa captionis detentionis and oftentimes una cum causa detentionis only captionis being omitted The Keeper of the Prison thereupon returnes by what Warrant he detaines the Prisoner and with his Return filed to his Writ brings the Prisoner to the Barre at the time appointed When the Return is thus made the Court judgeth of the sufficiency or insufficiency of it only out of the body of it without having respect to any other thing whatsoever that is they are to suppose the Return to be true whatsoever it be For if it be false the party may have his remedy by action on the case against the Gaoler that brings him Now my Lords when this Prisoner comes thus to the Barre if he desires to be bailed and that the Court upon view of the Return think him in Law to be bailed then he is alwayes first taken from the Keeper of the Prison that brings him and committed to the Marshall of the Kings Bench and afterwards bailed and the Entrie perpetually is Committitur Marr. postea traditur in ballium For the Court never bailes any man untill he becomes their own Prisoner and be in custodia Marescalli of that Court. But if upon return of the habeas Corpus it appears to the Court that the Prisoner ought not to be bailed nor discharged from the Prison whence he is brought then he is remanded or sent back again there to remain untill by Course of Law he may be delivered And the Entrie in such case is Remittitur quousque secundum legem deliberatus fuerit or Remittitur quousque c. which is all one and is the highest award or Judgement that ever was or can be given upon a habeas Corpus But if the Judges doubt only whether in Law they ought to take him from the prison whence he came or give daie to the Sheriff to amend his Return as often they do then they remand him only during the time of their debate or untill the Sheriff hath amended his Return and the Entrie upon it is Remittitur only or Remittitur prisonae predict without any more And so remittitur generally is of farre lesse moment in the award upon the habeas Corpus then remittitur quousque howsoever vulgar opinions raised out of the fame of the late Judgement be to the contrary All these things are of most known and constant use in the Court of Kings Bench as it cannot be doubted but your Lordships will easily know also from the grave and learned my Lords the Judges These two causes the one of the Entrie of Committitur Marescallo postea traditur in ballium and the other Remittitur quousque and Remittitur generally or Remittitur prisonae predict together with the nature of the habeas Corpus being thus stated it will be easier for me to open and your Lordships to observe whatsoever shall occurre to this purpose in the Presidents of Record to which I shall come in particular But before I come to the Presidents I am to let your Lordships know the resolution of the House of Commons touching the enlargement of any man committed by the command of the King or of the Privie Councell or of any other without cause shewed of such commitment It is thus That if a Free-man be committed or detained in prison or otherwise restrained by the Command of the King the Privie Councell or any other and no cause of such commitment detainer or restraint be expressed for which by Law he ought to be committed detained or restrained and the same be returned upon a habeas Corpus granted for the partie that then he ought to be delivered or bailed This resolution as it is grounded upon those Acts of Parliament already shewed and the reason of the Law of the Land which is committed to the charge of another and an one to be opened unto you is strengthened also by many Presidents of Record But the Presidents of Record that concerne this point are of two kinds for the House of Commons hath informed it self of such as concern it either way The first such as shew expresly that persons committed by the Command of the King or of the Privie Councell without any cause shewed have been enlarged upon Baile when they prayed it Whence it appeares cleerly that by Law they were bailable and so by habeas Corpus to be set at liberty For although they ought not to have been committed without cause shewen of their commitment yet it is true that the reverend Judges of this Land in former Ages did give such a respect to such commitment by Command of the King or of the Lords of the Councell as also to the commitments sometimes of inferiour persons that upon the habeas Corpus they rarely used absolutely to discharge the prisoners instantly but to enlarge them only upon Baile which sufficiently secures and preserves the Liberty of the Subject according to the Lawes that your Lordships have already heard Nor in any of these cases is there any difference made between any such commitments by the King and commitments by the Lords of the Councell that are incorporated with him The second kind of Presidents of Record are such as have been pretended to prove the Law to be contrarie and that persons so committed ought not
to be set at liberty upon Baile and are in the nature of Objections out of Record I shall deliver them summarily to your Lordships with all faith as also the true Copies of them Out of which it shall appear cleerly to your Lordships that of those of the first kind there are no lesse then twelve most full and directly in the point to prove that persons so committed are to be delivered upon baile and among those of the other kind there is not so much as one that proves at all any thing to the contrary I shall first my Lords go through them of the first kind and so observe them to your Lordships that such scruples as have been made upon them by some that have excepted against them shall be cleered also according as I shall open them severally The first of this first kind is of Edw. 3. time It is in Pasche 18. E. 3. Rot. 33. Rex The case was thus King E. 3. had committed by Writ that under his Great Seal as most of the Kings Commands in that time were one Iohn de Bidleston a Clergie-man to the prison of the Tower without any cause shewed of the commitment The Lieutenant of the Tower is commanded to bring him into the Kings Bench where he is committed to the Marshall But the Court asked of the Lieutenant if there were any cause to keep this Bidleston in prison besides that commitment of the King He answered No. Whereupon as the Roll saith Quia videtur Curiae breve predictum that is the Kings Command sufficientem non esse causam predictum Johannem de Bidleston in prisona Marr. Regis hic detinend idem Johannes dimittitur per manucaptionem Will. de Wakefield and some others Where the Judgement of the Court is fully declared in the very point The second of this first kind of Presidents of Record is in the time of H. the 8. One Iohn Parker was committed to the Sheriffs of London pro securitate pacis at the Suit of one Brinton ac pro suspicione fellonie committed by him at Cowall in Glocestershire ac per mandatum Dni Regis he is committed to the Marshall of the Kings Bench postea isto eodem Termino traditur in Ballium There were other causes of the commitment but plainly one was a Command of the King signified to the Sheriff of London of which they took notice But some have interpreted this as if the commitment here had been for suspicion of fellony by command of the King in which case it is agreed of all hands that the Prisoner is bailable But no man can think so of this President that observes the Contents and understands the Grammar of it wherein most plainly ac per mandatum Regis hath no reference to any other cause whatsoever but is a single cause enumerated in the Return by it self as the Record cleerly shewes It is in the 22. H. 8. Rot. 37. The third is of the same time It is 35. H. 8. Rot. 33. Iohn Bincks case He was committed by the Lords of the Councell pro suspicione fellonie ac pro aliis causis illos moventibus Qui committitur Marescallo c. et immediate ex gratia curiae special traditur in ballium They commit him for suspicion of fellony and other causes them thereunto moving wherein there might be matter of State or whatsoever else can be supposed and plainly the cause of the commitment is not expressed yet the Court bailed him without having regard to those other unknown causes that moved the Lords of the Councell But it is indeed somewhat different from either of those other two that precede and from the other nine that follow For it is agreed That if a cause be expressed in the return insomuch as the Court can know why he is committed that then he may be bailed but not if they know not the cause Now when a man is committed for a cause expressed pro aliis causis Dominos de Concilio moventibus certainly the Court can no more know in such a case what the cause is then in any other The fourth of these is in the time of Queen Mary It is Pasche 2. and 3. Phil. and Mar. Rot. 58. Overtons case Richard Overton was returned upon a habeas Corpus directed to the Sheriffs of London to have been committed to them and detained per mandatum prenobilium virorum honorabilis Concilii Dominorum Regis Reginae Qui committitur Marescallo c. immediate traditur in ballium In answer to this President or by way of objection against the force of it hath been said that this Overton stood at that time indicted of Treason It is true he was so indeed but that appeares in another Roll that hath no reference to the Return as the Return hath no reference to that Roll. Yet they that object this against the force of this President say That because he was indicted of Treason therefore though he was committed by the command of the Lords of the Councell without cause shewed yet he was bailable for the Treason and upon that was here bailed Then which Objection nothing can be or is more contrarie to Law or common Reason It is most contrarie to Law for that cleerly every Return is to be adjudged by the Court out of the body of the Writ it self not by any other collaterall or forrain Record whatsoever Therefore the matter of Indictment here cannot in Law be cause of the bailing of the Prisoner And it is so adverse to all common Reason that if the objection be admitted it must of necessity follow that whosoever shall be committed by the King or the Privie Councell without cause shewed and be not indicted of Treason or some other offence may not be inlarged by reason of the supposition of matter of State But that whosoever is so committed and withall stands so indicted though in another Record may be inlarged whatsoever the matter of State be for which he was committed The absurdity of which assertion needs not a word for further confutation as if any of the Gent. in the last Judgement ought to have been the sooner delivered if he had been also indicted of Treason Certainly if so Traitours and Fellons had the highest priviledges of personall Liberty and that above all other Subjects of the Kingdome The first of this first kind is of Queen Marie's time also It is Pasche 4. 5. P. M. Rot. 45. the Case of Edward Newport He was brought into the Kings Bench by habeas Corpus out of the Tower of London cum causa viz. Quod commissus fuit per mandatum Conciliorum Dominae Reginae Qui committitur Marr. c. et immediate traditur in ballium To this the like kind of answer hath been made as in that other Case of Overton next before cited They say that in another Roll of another Terme of the same year it appears he was in question for suspicion of Coyning And it
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 Lord as this writ de odio acia was before this statute so it was afterwards taken away by the statute of 28 Ed. 3. cap. 9. But before that sttatute this writ did lie in the speciall Case as is shewn in Brooks 9 th Reports Powlters Case and the end of this writ was that the Subject might not be too long detained in prison as till the Justices of Eyre discharged them so that the Law intended not that a man should suffer perpetuall imprisonment for they were very carefull that men should not be kept too long in prison which is also a Liberty of the Subject and my Lord that this Court hath bailed upon a suspicion of high treason I will offer it to your Lordship when I shall shew you presidents in these cases of a commitment by the Privy Councell or by the King himself But before I offer these presidents unto your Lordship of which there be many I shall by your Lordships favour speak a little to the next exception and that is the matter of the return which I find to be per speciale mandatum domini Regis 8. and what is that it is by this writ there may be sundry commands by the King we find a speciall command often in our Books as in the statute of Marlborough cap. 8. they were imprisoned Rediss shall not be delivered without the speciall command of our Lord the King and so in Bracton De Actionibus the last chapter where it appears that the Kings commandment for imprisonments is by speciall writ so by writ again men are to be delivered for in the case of Rediss or Post Rediss if it shall be removed by a Certiorare is by a speciall writ to deliver parties so that by this appears that by the Kings commandment to imprison and to deliver in those cases is understood this writ and so it may be in this case which we have heard And this return here is a speciall Mandatum it may be understood to be under some of the Kings Seals 42 Ass. and ought to be delivered and will you make a difference between the Kings command under his seal and his command by word of mouth what difference there is I leave it to your Lordships judgement but if there be any it is the more materiall that it should be expressed what manner of command it was which doth not here appear and therefore it may be the Kings command by writ or his command under his Seal or his command by word of mouth alone And if of an higher nature there is none of these commands then the other doubtlesse it is that by writ or under seal for they are of record and in these the person may be bailed and why not in this As to the legall forme admitting there were substances in the return yet
4 of November then there is an Alias habeas bears Teste after that and the tenour thereof is a command to the Warden of the Fleet quod habeas corpus Walteri Earl coram nobis ad subjiciendum recipiendum ea quae curia nostra de eo c. ordin conting And the Warden of the Fleet he certifies as your Lordship have heard May it please your Lordship I desire as before was desired for the other Gentlemen that Sir Walter Earl may be also bailed if there be no other cause of his imprisonment for if there were a cause certified and that cause were not sufficient to detain him still in prison your Lordship would bail him and if a man should be in worse case when there is no cause certified at all that was very hard The writ is that he should bring the prisoner coram nobis before the King the end of that is ad subjiciendum recipiendum now I conceive that though there be a signification of the Kings pleasure to have this Gentleman imprisoned yet when the King grants this writ to bring the prisoner hither ad subjictendum recipiendum his pleasure likewise is to have the prisoner let go if by Law he be not chargeable or otherwise to detain him still in prison if the case so require it I will put your Lordship in mind of a case and it was Pasch. 9. Ed. 3. M. 3. I will cite by the placita because my Book is not paged as other Books are it is in the case of a Cessavit In that case there were two things considerable the one that there was a signification of the Kings pleasure past and that determined with him the other that though there was a signification of the Kings pleasure before which was yet there comes after that a writ and that was another signification of the Kings pleasure that the prisoner should be brought hither ad subjiciendum to submit himself to punishment if he have deserved it or ad recipiendum to receive his enlargement and be delivered if there be no cause of his imprisonmet And if upon an Habeas corpus a cause of commitment be certified that cause is to be tried here before your Lordship But if no cause be shewn then the proceedings must be ut curia nostra ad mar contigerit the Court must do that which stands with Law and Justice and that is to deliver him My Lord I shall be bold to move one word more touching this return I conceive that every Officer to a Court of Justice must make his return of his own act or of the act of another and not what he is certified of by another But in this case the Warden of the Fleet doth not certifie himself of himself that this Gentleman was commanded to him by the King but that he was certified by the Lords of the Councill that it was the Kings pleasure that he should detain him But in our case the Warden of the Fleet must certifie the immediate cause and not the cause of the cause as it doth by this return Detentus est sub custodia mea per speciale mandatum Domini Regis mihi significatum per Warrantum duorum de Privato Concilio that is not the use in Law but he ought to return the primary cause and not the subsequent cause as in 32 Edw. 3. return Rex vicecom 87. in a writ De homine replegiando against an Abbot the Sheriffe returns that he hath sent to the Bayliffe of the Abbot and he answered him that the party was the Abbots villain and so he cannot deliver him that is held an insufficient return and a new Alias was granted but if the Sheriffe had returned that the Abbot did certifie him so it had been good but he must not return what is certified him by another In one of the presidents that hath been noted as that of Parker 22 Hen. 8. there the Guardian of the prison certifies that Parker detentus est sub custodia mea per mandatum Domini Regis mihi nunciatum per Robertum Pecke now our case is by the Nunciation of many but in Law majus minus non variant in spetione the certification of one and of many is of the same effect although in morall understanding there may be a difference Trin. 2. Ed. 3. Rot. 46. in this Court in 21 Ed. 3. in the printed Book there is a piece of it The Abbot of Burey brings a prohibition out of this Court the Bishop of Norwich pleadeth in Barre of that Quod mihi testificatū quod continetur in Archivis that he is excommunicated there were two exceptions taken to this case in this president and they are both in one case the first was that no case appeareth why he was excommunicated there may be causes why he should be excommunicated and then he should be barred and there may be causes why the excommunication should not barre him for it may be the excomunication was for bringing the action which was the Kings writ and therefore because there was no cause of the excommunication returned it was ruled that it was not good The other reason is that upon the Roll which is mihi testificatum Now every man when he will make a certificate to the Court Proprium factum suum non alterius significare debet he must inform the Court of the immediate act done and not that such things are told him or that such things are signified unto him but that was not done in this case and therefore it was held insufficient and so in this case of ours I conceive the return is insufficient in the form there is another cause my Lord for which I conceive this return is not good But first I will be bold to inform your Lordship touching the Statute of Magna Charta 29. Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur c. neo 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. no 9. and no 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 facts 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 altough 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 nor to have the cause of the commitment examined he hath here another signification of his pleasure by writ whereby the party is brought hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum that he hath made your Lordship Judge of that that should be objected against this Gentleman and either to punish him or to deliver him and if here be no cause shewn it is to be intended that the party is to be delivered and that it is the Kings pleasure it should be so and the writ is a sufficient warrant for the doing of it there being no cause shewn of the imprisonment and now my Lord I will speak a word to the writ of de homine replegiando and no other writ for that was the common writ and the four causes expressed in that Statue to wit the death of a man the command of the King or his Justices or Forrest were excepted in that writ before that Statute made as appears Bracton 133. so that the writ was at the Common Law before that Statute And it appears by our Books that if a man be brought hither by an Habeas corpus though he were imprisoned De morte hominis as in the 21 of Edward the fourth 7. Winkfield was bailed here this Court bailed him for he was brought hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum and not to lie in prison God knows how long and if the Statute should be expounded otherwise there were no bailing men outlawed or breakers of prisons for they are not within this Statute and yet this Court doth it at pleasure But plainly by the Statute it self it appears that it meant only to the common writ for the preamble recites that the Sheriffs and other have taken and kept in prison persons detected of felony and let out to plevin such as were not reprisable to grieve the one party and to the gain of the other and forasmuch as before this time it was not determined what prisoners were reprisable which not but onely in certain cases were expressed therefore it is ordained c. Now this is no more but for direction of the keepers of the prisons for it leaves the matter to the discretion of the Judges whether bailable or no not of the Judges for when the Statute hath declared who are repleviable who are not as men outlawed have abjured the Realm Proves such as be taken in the manner breakers of prisons burners of houses makers of false money counterfeiting of the Kings Seal and the like it is then ordained that if the Sheriff or any other let any go at large by surety that is not reprisable if he be Sheriff Constable or any other that hath the keeping of prisons and thereof be attainted he shall lose his office and fee for ever so that it extends to the common Goalers and keepers of prisons to direct them in what cases they shall let men to bail and in what cases not and that they shall not be Judges to whom to let to replevin and whom to keep in prison but it extends not to the Judges for if the makers of the Statute had meant them in it they should have put a pain upon them also So then I conclude upon these under your Lordships favour that as this case is there should have been a cause of the commitment expressed for these Gentlemen are brought hither by writ ad subjiciendum if they be charged and ad recipiendum if they be not charged and therefore in regard there is no charge against them whereupon they should be detained in prison any longer we desire that they may be bailed or discharged by your Lordship The Argument of Master Selden upon the Habeas corpus My Lords I am of Councell with Sir Edmond Hampden his case is the same with the other two Gentlemen I cannot hope to say much after that that hath been said yet if it shall please your Lordship I shall remember you of so much as is befallen my lot Sir Edmond Hampden is brought hither by a writ of Habeas corpus and the keeper of the Gate-house hath returned upon the writ that Sir Edmond Hampden is detained in prison per speciale mandatum Domini Regis mihi significatum per Warrantum duorum Privati Concilii dicti domini Regis and then he recites the warrants of the Lords of the Councell which is that they do will and require him to detain this Gentleman still in prison letting him know that his first imprisonment c. May it
and not by way of information out of another mans mouth may not be good as appeareth by the severall books of our law 23 Ed. 3. Rex vic 181. upon a Homine replegiando against the Abbot of C. the Sheriffe returneth that he had sent to the Bailiffe of the Abbot that answered him that he was the villain of the Abbot by which he might not make deliverance and a Sicut alias was awarded for this return was insufficient insomuch that he had returned the answer of the Bailiffe of the Abbot where he ought to have returned the answer of the Abbot himself out of his own mouth Trin. 22. Ed. 2. Rot. 46. parent vill Burg. Evesque de Norwich repl 68. Nat. Br. Case 34. Fitz. Nat. Br. 65. 34. Ed. 3. Excom 29. the case appeareth to be such in a trespasse the defendant pleadeth the plaintiffe is excommunicate and sheweth forth the letter of the Bishop of Lincoln witnessing that for divers contumacies c. and because he had certified no excommunic done by himself but by another the letter of excommunication was annulled for the Bishop ought to have certified his own act and not the act of another Hillarii 22 Hen. 8. Rot. 37. it appeareth by the return of an Habeas corpus that Iohn Parker was committed to prison for security of the peace and for suspicion of felony as per mandatum Domini Regis nunciatum per Robertum Peck de Cliffords Inne and upon his return Iohn Parker was bailed for the return Commiss fuit per speciale mandatum domini Regis nunciatum per Robertum Peck was not good insomuch that it was not a direct return that he was committed per mandatum Domini Regis And for the first point I conclude that this return is insufficient in form insomuch that it doth not make a precise and direct return that he was committed and detained by the speciall command of the King but onely as he was signified by the warrant of the Lords of the Councell which will not serve the turn and upon the book of 9 Hen. 6.44 the return of the cause of a mans imprisonment ought to be precise and direct upon the Habeas corpus insomuch as thereby to be able to judge of the cause whether it be sufficient or not for there may not any doubt be taken to the return be it true or false but the Court is to accept the same as true and if it be false the party must take his remedy by action upon the case And as concerning the matter of the return it will rest upon these parts First whether the return be that he is detained in prison by speciall commandment of our Lord the King be good or not without shewing the nature of the commandment or the cause whereupon the commitment is grounded in the return The second is whether the time of the first commitment by the commandment of the King not appearing to the Court is sufficient to detain him in prison Thirdly whether the imprisonment of the subjects without cause shewed but onely by the commandment of the King be warantable by the laws and statutes of this Realm As unto the first part I find by the books of our law that commandments of the King are of severall natures by some of which the imprisonment of a mans body is utterly unlawfull and by others of them although the imprisonment may be lawfull yet the continuance of him without bail or mainprise will be utterly unlawfull There is a verball command of the King which is by word of mouth of the Kings onely and such commandment by the King by the books of our law will not be sufficient either to imprison a man or to continue him in prison 16.6 Monstrans de faict si upon an action of trespasse brought for cutting of trees the defendant pleadeth that the place where he cut them is parcell of the Manor of D. whereof the King is seised in fee and the King commanded him to cut the trees and the opinion of the Court there is that the plea in barre was ill because he did not shew any speciall commandment of the King and there it is agreed by the whole Court that if the King commandeth one to arrest another and the party commanded did arrest the other an action of trespasse or false imprisonment is maintainable against the party that arrested him although it were done in the presence of the King 39 H. 6.17 where one justifieth the seisure of the goods of a person that is outlawed by the commandment of the King such a party being no Officer may not in an action brought against him have any aid of the King for such a commandment given to one that is not an Officer will not any wayes avail him that is to justifie himself by the return of that commandment 37 Hen. 6.10 If the king give me a thing and I take the same by his commandment by word of mouth it is not justified by law nothing may passe without matter of Record 10 Hen. 7.7 17.18 it is agreed that Justices may command one to arrest another that is in their view or presence but not one that is out of their view or presence And Keble 10 Hen. 7.13 said that where one is arrested by a parroll command in their view or presence it is fitting that a record may be made of it insomuch that without such a record there can hardly be a justification in another Term. Secondly there is a commandment of the King by his Commission which according unto Calvins case in the seventh Report it is called by him breve mandatum non remediabile and by virtue of such a commandment the King may neither seise the goods of his subject nor imprison his body as it is resolved in 42 Ass. pl. 5. where it is agreed by all the justices that a Commission to take a mans goods or imprison his body without indictment or suit of the party or other due processe is against the Law Thirdly there is a commandment of the King which is grounded upon a suggestion made to the King or to his Councell and if a man be committed to prison by such a suggestion by commandment of the King it is unlawfull and not warranted by the Law of the Realm The 25 of Edward the third cap. 4. de Provisoribus whereas it is contained in the great Charter of the Franchises of England that none shall be imprisoned or arrested of his Free-hold or of his Franchises nor of his free customes but by the Law of the land It is awarded consented and established that from henceforth none shall be taken by petition or suggestion made to our Soveraign Lord the King or to his Councell untill it be by indictment or presentment of his good and lawfull neighbours where such deeds are done in due manner or by processe made by writ originall at the common law nor of his free-hold unlesse he be duely brought
and Acts of Parliament came onely to the Presidents used in the Argument before delivered and so endeavoured to weaken the strength of them that had been brought in behalf of the subjects to shew that some other were directly contrary to the Law comprehended in the Resolutions of the house of Commons touching the bailing of Prisoners returned upon the writ of Habeas Corpus to be committed by the special command of the King or the Councel without any cause shewed for which by Law they ought to be committed And the course which was taken it pleased the Committee of both houses to allow of was that M r. Attorney should make his Objections to every particuler President and that the Gentlemen appointed and trusted herein by the house of Commons by several Replies should satisfie the Lords touching the Objections made by him against or upon every particuler as the order of the Presidents should lead them he began with the first 12. Presidents that were used by the house of Commons at the conference delivered by them to prove that Prisoners returned to stand so Committed were delivered upon bail by the Court of Kings Bench The first was that of Bildstones case in the 18. Edw. 3. Rot. 33. Rex To this he Objected First that in the return of him into the Court it did not appear that this Bildstone was committed by the Kings command and Secondly that in the Record it did appear also that he had been committed for suspicion of counterfaiting the great Seal and so by consequence was bailable by the Law in regard there appeared a Cause why he was committed in which case it was granted by him as indeed it was plain and agreed of all hands that the Prisoner is bailable though committed by Command of the King and he said that this part of the Record by which it appeared he had been committed for suspicion of treason was not observed to the Lords in the Argument before used and he said also to the Lords that there were three several kinds of Records by which the full truth of every award or bailing upon a Habeas Corpus is known First the remembrance Roll wherein the award is given Secondly the file of the writt and the return and Thirdly the Scruect or Scruet finium wherein the baile is entered and that onely the remembrance Roll of this Case was to be found and that if the other two of it were extant he doubted not but that it would appear also that upon the return it self the Cause of the Commitment had been expressed and so he concluded that this proved not for the house of Commons touching the Matter of bail where a Prisoner was committed by the Kings special command without Cause shewed To this Objection the reply was First that it was plain that Bildstone was committed by the Kings express Command For so the very words of the Writt are to the Constable of the Tower quod eum tenendum Custodiae facias c. then which nothing can more fully express a Commitment by the Kings command Secondly how ever it be true that in the latter part of the Record it doth appear that Bildstone had been Committed for suspicion of Treason yet if the times of the proceeding expressed in the Record were observed it would be plain that the Objection was of no force for this one ground both in this Case and all the rest is infallible and never to be doubted of in the Law Nota. That Justices of every Court adjudge of the force and strength of a return out of the body of it self onely and as therein it appears Now in Easter term in the 18. Edward 3. he was returned and brought before them as Committed onely by the Writt wherein noe Cause is expressed and the Leivetenant the Constable of the Tower that brought him into the Court saies that he had no other warrant to detain him Nisi breve predictum wherein there was no mention of any Cause the Court thereupon adjudged that breve predictum for that speciall command was not sufficient causa to detain him in prison and thereupon he is by judgment of the Court in Easter term let to Mainprize But that part of the Record wherein it appears that he had indeed been committed for suspicion of Treason is of Trinity term following when the King after the letting of him to Mainprize sent to the Judges that they should discharge his Mainprize because no man prosecuted him And at that time it appears but not before that he had been in for suspicion of Treason so that he was returned to stand committed by the Kings special command onely without Cause shewed in Easter term And then by judgment of the Court let to Mainprize which to this purpose is but the same with bail though otherwise it differ And in the term following upon another occasion the Court knew that he had been committed for suspicion of Treason which hath no relation at all to the letting of him to Mainprize nor to the judgement of the Court then given when they did not nor could possible know any Cause for which the King had committed him And it was said in behalf of the house of Commons that they had not indeed in the Argument expresly used this latter part of Bildstones Case because it being onely of Trinity term following could not concern the reason of an Award given by the Court in Easter term next before yet notwithstanding that they had most faithfully at the time of their Argument delivered into the Lords as indeed they had a perfect coppy at large of the whole Record of this Case as they had done also of all other presidents whatsoever cited by them in so much as in truth there was not one president of Record of either side the coppy whereof they had not delivered in likewise nor did Mr. Attorney mention any one besides those that were so delivered in by them And as touching those 3. kinds of Records the remembrance Roll the return and file of the Writt and the Scruets it was answered by the gentlemen imployed by the house of Commons that it was true that the Scruect and return of this Case of Bildstone was not to be found but that did not lessen the weight of the president because always in the Award or Judgment drawn up in the remembrance Roll the Cause whatsoever it be when any is shewed upon the return is always expressed as it appears clearly by the constant Entries of the Kings-Bench Court so that if any Cause had appeared plainly in that part of the Roll which belongs to Easter term wherein the Judgment was given but the return of the commitment by the Kings command without Cause shewed and the Judgment of the Court that the Prisoner was to be let to Mainprize appears therein onely and so notwithstanding any Objection made by Mr. Attorney the Cause was maintained to be a clear proof among many others
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
have been imprisoned for suing ordinary Actions and Statutes at the Common-Law untill they have been constrained to leave the same against their wills and put the same to order albeit Judgement and Execution have been had therein to their great losses and griefs for the aid of which Persons her Majesties Writs have sundry times been directed to divers Persons having the custody of such Persons unlawfully imprisoned upon which Writs no good or Lawfull cause of imprisonment hath been returned or certified whereupon according to the Laws they have been again committed to Prison in secret places and not to any common ordinary Prison or Lawfull Officer as Shrieff or other lawfully authorized to have or keep a Goal so that upon Lawfull complaint made for their delivery the Queens Courts cannot learn to whom to direct her Majesties Writs and by this means Justice cannot be done and moreover divers Officers and Serjeants of London have been many times committed to Prison for Lawfull executing of her Majesties Writ sued forth of her Majesties Courts at West-minster and thereby her Majesties Subjects and Officers are so terrified that they dare not sue or execute her Majesties Laws her Writs and Commandments Divers others have been sent for by Pursevants and brought to London from their dwellings by unlawfull imprisonment have been constrained not onely to withdraw their Lawfull Suits but have also been compelled to pay the Pursevants for bringing such Persons great summes of money All which upon complaint the Judges are bound by Office and Oath to relieve and help by and according to her Majesties Laws And when it pleaseth your Lordships to will divers of us to set down in what cases a Prisoner sent to custody by her Majesty her Councel some one or other or two are to be detained in Prison and not to be delivered by her Majesties Court or Judges we thinck that if any Person be committed by her Majesties Command from her Person or by order from the Councel board or if any one or two of her Councel commit one for high Treason such Persons so in the cases before committed may not be delivered by any of her Courts without due Trial had Nevertheless the Judges may Award the Queens Writ to bring the bodies of such Persons before them and if upon return thereof the causes of their commitment be certified to the Judges as it ought to be then the Judges in the cases before ought not to deliver him but to remaund the Prisoner to the place from whence he came Which cannot conveniently be done unless notice of the cause in general or else special be known to the Keeper or Goaler that shall have the custody of such Prisoner All the Judges and Barons did subscribe their names to these Articles Termino Pascha 34. Eliz. and sent one to the Lord Chancellor and another to the Lord Treasurer after which time there did follow more quietness then before in the cause afore mentioned The KINGS Message the 2. May 1628. by Secretary COKE HIs Majesty hath commanded me to make known to this House that howsoever we proceed with the business we have in hand which he will not doubt but to be according to our constant professions and so as he may have cause to give us thanks yet his resolution is that both his royal care and his harty and true affection towards all his loving Subjects shall appear to the whole Kingdom and to all the World that he will govern us according to the Laws and Customes of the Realm that he will maintain us in the Liberties of our Persons and propriety of our goods so as we may enjoy as much happiness as our Forefathers in their best times and that he will rectifie what hath been or may be amiss amongst us so that there may be hereafter no just cause to complain wherein as his Majesty will ranck himself amongst the best of our Kings and shew he hath no intention to invade or impeach our Lawfull Liberties or Rights so he will have us to match our selves with the best Subjects by not incroaching upon that Soveraignty and Prerogative which God hath put into his hands for our good and by containing our selves within the bounds and Laws of our Forefathers without streining or inlarging them by new Explanations Interpretations Expositions or Additions in any sort which he clearly telleth us he will not give way unto That the weight of the affairs of Christendom do press him more and more and the time is now grown to that point of maturity that it cannot indure long debate or delay so as this Session of Parliament must continue no longer then Tuesday come sevenight at the furthest within which time his Majesty for his part will be ready to perform what he hath promised to us and if we be not as forward to do that is fit for us it shall be our own faults Lastly upon the assurance of our good dispatch and correspondency his Majesty declareth that his Royal intention is to have another Session at Michalmass next for the perfecting of such things as cannot now be done M r. MASONS speech 2. May 1628. I Am of opinion with the Gentleman that spake first that in our proceedings in the matter now in debate we should have use of the Title of the Statute called circumspecte agatis for it concerns the Liberty of our Persons without which we do not enjoy our lives The Question is WHether in this Bill for the explanation of Magna Charta and the rest of the Satutes we shall provide that the cause of the commitment must be expressed upon the commitment or upon the Return of the Habeas Corpus Before I speak to the question it self I shall propose some observations in my conceit necessarily conduceing to the debate of the Matter 1. That we ought to take care and to provide for posterity as our Predecessors have done for us and that this provident care cannot be expounded to be any distrust of the performance of his Majesties gracious Declaration this Act providing for perpetuity to which his Highness promise unless it were by Act of Parliament cannot extend 2. That we having long debated and solemnly resolved our Rights and Priviledges by virtue of these Statutes and if now we shall reduce those Declarations and those resolutions into an Act we must ever hereafter expect to be confined within the bounds of that Act being made at our Suit and to be the limmits of the Prerogative in in that respect and it being an Act of explanation which shall receive no further explanation then it self contains 3. That by this Act we must provide a remedy against the Persons which detain us in Prison for as to the Commander there can be no certain Concerning the Question it self IT hath been solemnly and clearly resolved by the House that the commitment of a Freeman without expressing the cause at the time of the commitment is against the Law If by this Act