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 bee a difference Trin. 2 Ed. 3. Rot. 46. in this Court in 21 Ed. 3. in the printed Book there is a peece of it The Abbot of Burey brings a prohibition out of this Court the Bishop of Norwich pleadeth in Bar of that Quod mihi testificatum 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 excommunication 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. nec super eum mittimus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae That in this Statute these words in Carcerem are omitted out of the printed Books for it should be nec eum in Carcerem mittimus For these words per legem terrae what Lex terrae should be I will not take upon me to expound otherwise then I finde them to be expounded by Acts of Parliament and this is that they are understood to be the processe of the Law sometimes by writ sometimes by attachment of the person but whether speciale mandatum Domini Regis be intended by that or no I leave it to your Lordships exposition upon two petitions of the Commons and answer of the King in 36 Ed. 3. n o 9. and n o 20. In the first of them the Commons complain that the great Charter the Charter of the Forest and other Statutes were broken and they desire that for the good of himselfe 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 petition 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 Wee finde more printed Bookes as in Henry the sixth Mius de fiacts Fitz. 182. which is a strong case under favour in an action of Trespasse for cutting down trees the defendant saith that the place where the trees are cut is parcell of the Manor of B whereof the King is seised in fee and that the King did command him to cut them and the opinion of the Court was that this was no good plea without shewing the specialty of the command and they said if the King command me to arrest a man and I arrest him he shall have an action of false imprisonment against me although it were done in the Kings presence In 1 Ioh. cap. 7. fol. 46. it is in print and there we leave it Hussey Chief Justice saith that Sir Iohn Markham told King Edward the fourth that he could not arrest a man upon suspition of felony or treason as any of his Subjects might because if he should wrong a man by such arrest the parties could have no remedy against him if any man shall stand upon it here is a signification of the Kings pleasure not to have the cause of the commitment examined he hath here another signification of his pleasure by writ whereby the party is brought hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum that he hath made your Lordship Judge of that that should be objected against this Gentleman and either to punish him or to deliver him and if here be no cause shewn it is to be intended that the party is to be delivered and that it is the Kings pleasure it should be so and the writ is a sufficient warrant for the doing of it there being no cause shewn of the imprisonment and now my Lord I will speak a word to the writ of De homine replegiando and no other writ for that was the common writ and the four causes expressed in that Statute to wit the death of a man the command of the King or his Justices or Forest 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 apppears 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. Winckfield was bailed here this Court bailed him for he was brought hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum and not to he 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
hath been many times confirmed the Lord Coke numbred up the number to be about twenty and we are to conclude on this it is the foundation of our liberties No Free-man can be imprisoned but by legale judicium Parium suorum aut per legem terrae But will they have it understood that no man should be committed but first he shall be indicted or presented I think that no learned man will offer that for certainly there is no Justice of Peace in a County nor Constable within a Town but he doth otherwise and might commit before an Indictment can be drawn or a Presentment can be made what then is meant by these words Per legem terrae if any man shall say this doth not warrant that the King may for reasons moving him commit a man and not be answerable for it neither to the party nor under your Lordships favour unto any Court of Justice but to the High Court of Heaven I doe deny it and will prove it by your statutes My Lord it was urged by the Councell on the other side that our printed Magna Charta which saith nec super eum mittimus are mistaken and that in divers Manuscripts it is expresly set down to be nec eum in Carcerem mittimus I cannot judge of the Manuscripts that I have not seen but my Lord I have one here by me which was written many Ages agoe and the words in print are word for word as that that is here written Then they say that Matthew Paris sets it downe so in his story my Lord we doe not govern our selves by Chronicle but to answer that of Matthew Paris he reports a thing done in King Iohns time but it was then but thought on and it was enacted in the time of Henry the third and there bee many things said to be done in Matthew Paris which were not and many things omitted by him which were done This Charter was but in election in the time of King John and then it might be nec eum in Carcerem mittimus but it was not enacted till the time of Henry the third and then that was omitted and the Charter granted as now we have it But if they doe see no more then I in this clause I know not why we should contend about these words seeing the first part of this statute saith Nemo imprisonetur why then may not I say as well nec eum in carcerem mittimus I see no difference in the words and therefore my Lord I shall not insist any longer upon the literall exposition of the words of Magna Charta but I will resort to the rest of it which is exprest in the subsequent statute and in common practise 2 E. 3. 8. 5 E. 3. 9. 14 E. 3. 14. The Councell on the other side said that the statute of 28 E. 3. c. 3. expresseth and giveth life to this Charter I shall desire to have that statute read Keeling Clerk Item whereas it is contained in the great Charter c. Vide all these statutes following in Master Littletons Argument in Parliament Heath Atturney My Lord the reading of this statute will give answer to it for it is apparent by the words thereof none shall be taken by petition c. and that the Court be extended to the first arrest but they are to be understood that none shall be condemned but hee shall be brought to answer and be tried And if it be expounded otherwise it will be contrary to that practise which was then in use But it is utterly forbidden by this statute that any man should be condemned upon suggestions or petitions made to the King or Councell without due triall by Law The next statute they cited was 25 Ed. 3. cap. 4. My Lord I desire that that may be read Keeling Clerk Item that no man of what estate or condition soever that he be shall be put out of land or tenement nor taken nor imprisoned nor disinherited nor put to death without being brought to answer by due processe of Law 42 E. 3. 3. Heath Atturney My Lord this statute is intended to be a finall prosecution for if a man shall be imprisoned without due processe and never be brought to answer that is unjust and forbidden by this statute but when a man is taken in causes that are unknown to us who walk below the staires we are not privy to the circumstances which may cause the triall to be delayed and peradventure it is not time to bring the matter to triall because it is not yet come to maturity and therefore this is not in the meaning of the statute Another statute that they mention is in the same year and it is pag. 9. chap. 9. I desire it may be read Keeling Clerk Item because the people of the Realm c. Vide Master Littleton as before Heath Atturney My Lord it is very clear that this statute had no manner of thought of this cause in question But whereas Sheriffes did procure Commissions to be awarded to themselves for their private gain to the prejudice of the subject the statute condemneth those commissions but it maketh nothing to this question which we have now in hand The next statute which they cited was 37 Ed. 3. cap. 18. I beseech it may be read Keeling Clerk Item though it be contained in the great Charter c. Vide as aforesaid Heath Atturney My Lord this statute seems to be a commentary and light to the other statutes the scope whereof is against private suggestions made to the King or his Councell and not in legall way and therefore it condemnes them and this is more fully expressed in the statute of 38 Ed. 3. cap. 9. which they likewise mentioned by which statute direction is given what security those persons which make such suggestions are to give that they should prosecute their suggestions and what punishment they shall undergoe if their suggestions be found false Keeling Clerk Item as to the Article made at the last Parliament c. Vide as before said Heath Atturney My Lord this and the last statute seem to conduce both to one purpose that they that in their accusations went not in a legall way to bring the party to his answer it was directed by this statute that they should goe a legall way The last Parliament in print the Councell on the other side produced was the statute of 1 R. 2. chap. 12. which I desire may be read Keeling Clerk Item whereas divers people at the suit of parties were committed to the Fleet c. Vide as before Heath Atturney My Lord it appeareth that the scope of this statute is against the Wardens of the Feet for some miscarriages in them but there is one thing in this statute which I shall desire your Lordship to observe and that is for those misdemeanours he shall forfeit his office except it be by writ from the King or his commandement so that it was no new doctrine
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 Sheriffe or any other let any goe at large by surety that is not reprisable if he be Sheriffe 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 Gaolers and keepers of prisons to direct them in what cases they shall let men to bail and in what cases not 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 Master Seldens Argument at the Kings Bench Bar the same day 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 Gatehouse hath returned upon the writ that Sir Edmond Hampden is detained in prison per speciale mandatum domini Regis mihi significatum per Warr antum duorum Privati Concilii dicti domini Regis and then he recites the warrants of the Lords of the Councel which is that they doe will and require him to detain this Gentleman still in prison letting him know that his first imprisonment c. May it please your Lordship I shall humbly move you that this Gentleman may also be bailed for under favour my Lord there is no cause in the return why he should be any farther imprisoned and restrained of his liberty My Lord I shall say something to the form of the writ and of the return but very little to them both because there is a very little left for me to say My Lord to the form I say it expresseth nothing of the first caption and therefore it is insufficient I will adde one reason as hath been said the Habeas corpus hath onely these words quod habeas corpus ejus una cum causa detentionis non captionis But my Lord because in all imprisonment there is a cause of caption and detention the caption is to be answered aswell as the detention I have seen many writs of this nature and on them the caption is returned that they might see the time of the caption and thereby know whether the party should be delivered or no and that in regard of the length of his imprisonment The next exception I took to the form is that there is much incertainty in it so that no man can tell when the writ came to the keeper of the prison whether before the return or after for it appears not when the Kings command was for the commitment or the signification of the Councell came to him It is true that it appears that the warrant was dated the seventh of November but when it came to the keeper of the prison that appeares not at all and therefore as for want of mentioning the same time of the caption so for not expressing the same time when this warrant came I think the return is faulty in form and void And for apparent contradiction also the return is insufficient for in that part of the return which is before the warrant it is said quod detentus est per speciale mandatum domini Regis the warrant of the Lords of the Councell the very syllables of that warrant are that the Lords of the Councell doe will and require him still to detain him which is contrary to the first part of the return Besides my Lord the Lords themselves say in another place and passage of the warrant that the King commanded them to commit him and so it is their commitment so that upon the whole matter there appears to be a clear contradiction in the return and there being a contradiction in the return it is void Now my Lord I wil speak a word or two to the matter of the return and that is touching the imprisonment per speciale mandatum domini Regis by the Lords of the Councell without any cause expressed and admitting of any or either of both of these to be the return I think that by the constant and settled Laws of this kingdome without which we have nothing no man can be justly imprisoned by either of them without a cause of the commitment expressed in the return My Lord in both the last Arguments the statutes have been mentioned and fully expressed yet I will adde a little to that which hath been said The statute of Magna Carta cap. 29. that statute if it were fully executed as it ought to be every man would enjoy his liberty better then he doth The Law saith expresly no Free-man shall be imprisoned without due processe of the Law out of the very body of this Act of Parliament besides the explanation of other statutes it appears Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur nisi per legem terrae My Lord I know these words legem terrae doe leave the question where it was if the interpretation of the Statute were not But I think under your Lordships favour there it must be intended by due course of Law to be either by presentment or by indictment My Lords if the meaning of these words Per legem terrae were but as we use to say according to the lawes which leaves the matter very
uncertain and per speciale mandatum c. be within the meaning of these words according to the law then this Act had done nothing The Act is No Free-man shall be imprisoned but by the law of the land if you will understand these words per legem terrae in the first sense this statute shall extend to Villains as well as to Free-men for if I imprison another man Villain the Villain may have an action of false imprisonment But the Lords and the King for then they both had Villains might imprison them and the Villain could have no remedy but these words in the statute per legem terrae were to the Free-man which ought not to be imprisoned but by due processe of law and unlesse the interpretation shall be this the Free-man shall have no priviledge above the Villain So that I conceive my Lord these words per legem terrae must be here so interpreted as in 42 Eliz. the Bill is worth the observing it reciteth that divers persons without any writ or presentment were cast into prison c. that it might be enacted that it should not be so done hereafter the answer there is that this is an Article of the great Charter this should be granted so that it seems the statute is not taken to be an explanation of that of Magna Charta but the very words of the statute of Magna Charta I will conclude with a little observation upon these words nec super eum mittimus which words of themselves signifie not so much a man cannot finde any fit sense for them But my Lord in the seventh year of King Iohn there was a great Charter by which this statute in the ninth of Henry the third whereby we are now regulated was framed and there the words are nec eum in Carcerem mittimus we will not commit him to prison that is the King himself will not and to justifie this there is a story of that time in Matthew Paris and in that Book this Charter of King Iohn is set down at large which Book is very authentique and there it is entred and in the ninth of Henry the third he saith that the statute was renued in the same words with the Charter of King Iohn and my Lord he might know it better then others for he was the Kings Chronologer in those times and therefore my Lord since there be so many reasons and so many presidents and so many statutes which declare that no Free-man whatsoever ought to be imprisoned but according to the laws of the land and that the liberty of the subject is the highest inheritance that hee hath my humble request is that according to the ancient laws and priviledges of this Realm this Gentleman my Client may be be bailed The Argument of Mr Calthrop at the Kings Bench Bar 22 Novembris Mich. 3. Caroli Regis Sir Iohn Corbet being brought to the Kings Bench Bar with Sir Edmond Hampden Sir Walter Earl and Sir Iohn Henningham who wer also brought thither by severall writs of Habeas corpus with the same return I being assigned by the Court of Kings Bench upon a petition delivered to be of Councell with Sir Iohn Corbet did move that Sir Iohn Corbet might bee discharged of his imprisonment and put in bail for I did conceive that the return of this Habeas corpus was insufficient both in the matter of the return and in the manner of the return and so there ought not to be a longer detaining of Sir Iohn Corbet in prison for as unto the manner of the return it is not laid downe precisely that Sir Iohn Corbet is detained in prison by the speciall commandment of the King signified by the warrant of the Lords of the Councell the which is not a direct affirmation that he is detained by the speciall command of the King but that the Lords of the Councell by their warrant have signified unto him that he was committed and still detained by the speciall command of the King And howsoever the Lords of the Councell had signified that he was detained by the commandment of the King yet it may be he was not detained by the commandment of the King for their signification of the same by warrant may be untrue and the warrant of the Lords of the Councell that is returned in haec verba importeth that the keeper of the Gatehouse rather tooke upon him to return that was signified unto him by the warrant of the Lords of the Councel that Sir Iohn Corbet was committed and detained by the speciall commandment of the King because if the keeper had taken upon him to affirm it upon his return then needed he not to have returned the warrants of the Lords of the Councell and the warrant it self sheweth that hee had onely his information from the Lords of the Councell for their warrant is to let the keeper know that both the first commitment and this direction for the continuing of him in prison were and are by his Majesties speciall commandment and I doe not see as this return is made that an accord upon the case can lie upon the keeper of the Gatehouse if Sir Iohn Corbet was not committed nor detained by the speciall commandment of the King so long as the warrant of the Lords of the Councell bee returned as it was made because hee doth return the same as the Significavit of the Lords by their warrant Register 65. the writ of Excommunication Capiend ' goeth Rex vicecom ' Lincoln ' S. significavit nob ' venerabilis Pater Henricus Lincolniensis Episcopus per Literas suas Patentes quod R. suus Parochial ' propter suam manifestam contumac ' authoritate ipsius Episc ordin ' excom ' est nec se vult per censuram Ecclesiasticam justiciar ' c. tibi praecipimus quod praedict ' R. per corpus suum secundum consuetud ' Angliae justic ' c. and yet no man will say that there is an information of the King that R. is excommunicated but onely that the Bishop of Lincoln had signified unto him that R. was excommunicated and in Fitz. Nat. Br. 663. and Register 65. it appears that the form of the writ of Excommunication deliberand ' is Rex Vicecom ' London Salut ' Cum Thom ' lay allutar ' London qui nuper ad denuntiat venerabil ' Patris Archiep ' Eborum pro contumaciis suis ratione contractus in civitate nostra Eborum habit ' ut dicebat tanquam excom ' claves Ecclesiae contemnent ' per corp ' suum secundum confuetud ' Angliae per te justic ' praecepimus donec c. esset satisfact ' eid ' Archiepiscopâ— â—…d satisfaciendum deo et sanctae ecclesiae sufficientem exposuit cautionem per quod eidem Archiepiscopus offic Archdiac London mutuae vicissitudin ' obtentu scripsit ut ipsum absolvat ab excom ' senten ' memorata sicut idem Archiepiscopus per Literas suas Patentes nob ' significavit
prison or no I conceive that he ought not to be continued in prison admitting that the first commitment by the command of the King were lawfull yet when he hath continued in prison by such reasonable time as may be thought fit for that offence for which he is committed he ought to be brought to answer and not to continue still in prison without being brought to answer For it appears by the Books of our Laws that liberty is a thing so favoured by the Law that the Law will not suffer the continuance of a man in prison for any longer time then of necessity it must and therefore the Law will neither suffer the party Sheriffs or Judges to continue a man in prison by their power and their pleasure but doth speed the delivery of a man out of prison with as reasonable expedition as may be And upon this reason it is resolved in 1 2 El. Dyer 175. 8 Ed. 4. 13. That howsoever the Law alloweth that there may be no terme between the test of an originall Writ and the return of the same where there is only a summons and no imprisonment of the body yet it will not allow that there shall be a term between the test of a Writ of Capias and the return of the same where the body of a man is to be imprisoned insomuch that it will give no way that the party shall have no power to continue the body of a man imprisoned any longer time then needs must 39 E. 3. 7. 10 H. 7. 11. 6 E. 4. 69. 11. E. 4. 9. 48 E. 3. 1. 17 E. 3. 1 2 Hen. 7. Kellawaies Reports do all agree that if a Capias shall be awarded against a man for the apprehending of his body and the Sheriffe will return the Capias that is awarded against the party a non est inventus or that languidus est in prisona yet the Law will allow the party against whom it is awarded for the avoiding of his corporall penance and dures of imprisonment to appear gratis and for to answer For the Law will not allow the Sheriffe by his false return to keep one in prison longer then needs must 38 Ass pl. 22. Brooks imprisonment 100. saith That it was determined in Parliament that a man is not to be detained in prison after he hath made tender of his fine for his imprisonment therefore I desire your Lordship that Sir John Corbet may not be kept longer in durance but be discharged according to the Law The Lord Chief Justice his Speech Master Atturney you have heard many learned Arguments if you be provided to answer presently we will hear you but if you will have a longer day for that you are not provided to argue you may we will give it you Doderidge If you will you may see these presidents it may be you have not seen some of them and we must see them too Heath Atturney May it please your Lordship the Gentlemen that be of Councell with the Knights at the Barre they have said much and spoken very long for their Clients and to good purpose and pertinently It is a cause that carrieth with it a great deal of weight both towards the King and his Subjects also and I am not so hasty to put my self upon the main point of this cause when it is almost time for your Lordship to rise My Lord the Gentlemen have severally spoken and given and insisted upon severall reasons and they have cited many presidents I could say something of them at this present and that some of them have been mistaken and therefore I beseech your Lordship that I may have time to answer that I may not wrong the cause of the Kings part or slight the cause on the Subjects part But that which I desire to say now is that these Gentlemen have all of them gone in one form to divide the cause into two parts part 1 The first the form of the Return part 2 The second the matter of the Return For the form me thinks we may put an end to that now if your Lordship please that we may have no return to that another day but I may apply my self unto the matter of the Return To the form of the Return they have taken divers exceptions but they especially insisted upon two main heads First that the Return is not good because it is not an absolute Return I confesse the ground is well laid and the Major is good that if this Return be not positively the Return of the Warden of the Fleet himself but the relation of another it is no good Return therefore I need spend no time in that the ground being well laid but under your Lordships favour the Major proposition I deny we differ onely in that for I say that this Return is certain and that it is not the words of any man else but the express words of the Warden himself and that this is added ex abundanti to give satisfaction to the Court that he had order to make the Return therefore I desire your Lordship to cast your eyes upon the substance of the Return and distinguish it into parts The words are Detentus est in prisona sub custodia mea per speciale Mandatum domini Regis mihi significatum per Warrantum duorum Privati concilii dicti domini Regis c. If he had turned these words and said Detent ' est prout mihi significat ' per Warrantum duorum Privati concilii per speciale mandatum domini Regis then it might be taken to be the words of the Lords of the Councell but the first words being positive Detentus est per speciale mandatum domini Regis that is sufficient and the rest is surplusage and he doth not say prout mihi significut but mihi significat onely which is absolute and the resolution thereof resteth more in your Lordships expounding of the words then in putting any case upon them The second exception is taken to the form of the Return for that there is not the cause of the imprisonment returned but of the detaining alone My Lord I say no more to that but this No man is bound to answer more then that which is the contents of the Writ I know the Writ it may be to know specially the cause of the detaining or what the cause of the caption is onely and if the Officer make answer to that which is required of him in the Writ it is sufficient it may be there be presidents both ways I am sure there are detentions onely and there is no cause why the Officer should shew the time of his commitment but if the Prisoner shall desire it your Lordship may grant him a Writ to shew the cause both of his caption and detention also Thirdly they say that this Return is uncertain and that it is the Warrant of the Lords of the Councell and not of the King by which he is committed For that my
but temporary and it might be amended but my Lord they have mistaken the minor proposition for they have it as granted that there is an imperfect returne from the Lords of the Councell my Lord I shall intreat you to cast your eyes upon the Return and you shall finde the first words positive and affirmative the words are Quod detentus est sub custodia mea per speciale mandatum domini Regis the other words mihi significatum they follow after but are not part of the affirmation made before it but if they will have it as they seem to understand it then they must return the words thus Quod testificatum or significatum est mihi per dominos Privati Concilii quod detentus est per speciale mandatum domini Regis and then indeed it had not been their own proper return but the signification of another The Lords of the Councell the turning of the sentence will resolve this point the thing it self must speak for it selfe I conceive by your Lordships favour that it is plain and cleare here is a positive Return that the detaining is by the commandment of the King and the rest of the Return is rather satisfaction to my self and the Court then otherwise any part of the Return The second Objection hath dependence upon this as that he hath returned the cause of the cause and not the cause of it self wherein under your Lordships favour they are utterly mistaken for the Return is affirmative Ego Iohannes Liloe testifico c. I know that among the Logicians there are two causes there is Causa causans and Causa caussata the causa causans here in this case is not the warrant from the Lords of the Councell for that is causa causata but the Primary and Originall cause which is causa causans is speciale mandatum domini Regis the other is but the Councels signification or testification or warrant for him that made the Return To the third Objection that the Return is imperfect because it shews only the cause of the detaining in prison and not the cause of the first commitment My Lords for that I shall not insist much upon it for that I did say the last day which I must say again it is sufficient for an Officer of the Law to answer that point of the Writ which is in command Will your Lordship please to hear the Writ read and then to see whether the Wardens of the prisons have not made answer to so much as was in command Then the Writ was read by Master Keeling Heath Atturney Generall My Lord the Writ it selfe clears the Objection for it is to have the party mentioned in it and the cause of his detention returned into this Court and therefore the answer to that is sufficient Onely my Lord the Warden of the Fleet and the rest of the keepers of the prisons had dealt prudently in their proceedings if they had onely said that they were detained Per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis and it had been good and they might have omitted the rest but because if they should make a false Return they were liable to the actions of the party they did discreetly to have the certification of the Lords of the Councell in suspition that if this Return was not true they were liable to the actions of these Gentlemen In 9 H. 6. 40. 44. it is said that whatsoever the cause be that is returned it must be accepted by the Court they must not doubt of the truth of the Return and the Officer that shall return it is liable to an action if the Return be false and therefore the Guardian of the prisons did wisely because they knew this was a case of great expectation to shew from whom they had their warrant and so to see whether the cause returned bee true or not The last Objection to the Return is that it is contradictory in it self as that the first part of it is that they are detained in prison Per speciale mandatum Domini Regis but in this relation of it it shews that they are detained by the command of the Lords of the Councell for the words of their warrant are to require you still to detain him c. But my Lord if they will be pleased to see the whole warrant together they shall finde that the Lords of the Councell speak not their own words or command in that warrant but they say that you are to take notice of it as the words and command of the King for my Lord the Lords of the Councell are the servants to the King they signifie his Majesties pleasure to your Lordship and they say it is his Majesties pleasure you should know that the first commitment this present detaining him in prison are by his Majesties speciall commandment And this my Lord is all that I will say for the sufficiency of the form of the Return to prove that it is sufficient Touching the matter of the Return the main point thereof it is but a single question and I hope my Lord of no great difficulty and that is whether they be replevisable or not replevisable It appears that the commitment is not in a legall and ordinary way but that it is per speciale mandatum domini Regis which implies not onely the fact done but so extraordinarily done that it is notorious to be his Majesties immediate Act and will it should be so whether in this case they should be bailable or not in this Court which I acknowledge to be the highest Court of Judicature for such a case as is in question The Councell on the other side desire that they may be bailed and have concluded that they may not be remaunded their grounds of argument though they were many that did speak I have in my collection divided into five points The first was reasons that they must be so arising from the inconveniences that would fall to the subjects if it should not be so in the main points of their liberty The second was they shewed divers Authorities out of their Law books which they endeavoured to apply The third was Petition of the Commons answered by severall Kings in Parliament The fourth was Acts of Parliament in Print The last was Presidents of divers times which they alledged to prove that men committed by the Kings commandment and by the commandment of the Lords of the Privy Councell which I conceive to be all one for the body of the Privy Councell represents the King himself that upon such commitment in such causes men have been bailed In the course of my Arguments I will follow their method first to answer their reasons and then those Books which they have cited which I conceive to be pertinent to this question and then the Petition and Answer made in Parliament and then their Acts of Parliament next their Presidents and lastly I will give your Lordship some reasons of my owne which I hope shall sufficiently satisfie your
Lordship and all others but the parties themselves for I except them My Lord the great and mighty reason that they insisted upon was the inconveniences that might come to the subjects in their liberties if this Return should be good and this reason they inferred out of Records and Books of the Common Law which gives the liberty of the subjects I doe acknowledge that the liberty of the subject is just and that it is the inheritance of the subject but yet it is their inheritance secundum legem terrae My Lords they put many cases likewise to enforce it 1 2 Eliz. Dier fo 175. that the continuance of a Capias shall bee from Term to Term without Term betwixt because otherwise the party defendant may be kept too long in prison and 38 Ass pl. 22. Broke tit Imprisonment 100. that imprisonment is but to detaine the party till he have made fine to the King and therefore the King cannot justly detain him in prison after the fine tendred and 16 H. 6. monstrans de faictz 182. if the King command me to arrest a man and thereupon I doe arrest him he may have an action of false imprisonment or of trespasse against me though it be done in the Kings presence and 1 H. 7. 4. the discourse of Hussey where he saith that Sir John Markham delivered unto King Edward the fourth that hee should not arrest upon treason or felony any of his subjects because hee could not wrong his subjects by such arrest for they could not have remedy against him Prerogative Br. 139. These my Lord are the causes that they insisted upon for this purpose To the two first I shall give but one answer which is that the restraint in these two cases and most of the other cases before cited appears to be in the ordinary course of Judicature fit for Westminster Hall and not for the Kings Councell Table A writ of Capias was the first originall of it and therefore not to be applied to the cause of ours And for the other two cases the law presumeth that the active part of them is not so proper for the Majesty of a King who ever doth these things by his subordinate Officers But that the subject should not be committed by the King was never heard of for the King may commit any man at his pleasure but that is not our case but whether when the King hath committed one he must render a cause of that commitment that it may appear whether the party be bailable or not or else the party must be delivered The Book 9 E. 3. fol. 16. pl. 30. cited of a Cessavit the King having by Proclamation commanded that in the County of Northumberland no Cessavit should be brought c. during the war the tenant pleadeth this command and it was denyed him and he that notwithstanding was commanded to plead but the reason thereof was because the commandment thereof was given by E. 2. who being dead the commandment was determined The Book of Edward the third 4. fol. 16. is indeed where the commandment was given by the same King and that was likewise denyed him for the King cannot command your Lordship to any other Court of Justice to proceed otherwise then according to the Laws of this kingdome for it is part of your Lordships oath to judge according to the Law of the kingdome But my Lord there is a great difference between those legall commands and that absolute Potestas that a Soveraign hath by which a King commands but when I call it absoluta potestas I doe not mean that it is such a power as that a King may doe what he pleaseth for he hath rules to governe himself by as well as your Lordship who are subordinate Judges under him the difference is the King is the head of the same fountaine of Justice which your Lordship administers to all his subjects all Justice is derived from him and what he doth he doth not as a private person but as the Head of the Common-wealth as Iusticiarius Regni yea the very essence of Justice under God upon earth is in him and shall not wee generally not as subjects onely but as Lawyers who governe themselves by the rules of the Law submit to his command but make inquiries whether they be lawfull and say that the King doth not this or that in course of Justice If your Lordship sitting here shall proceed according to Justice who calleth your actions in question except in your own Judgements you see some errour in the proceeding and then you are subject to a writ of Errour But who shall call in question the Actions or the Justice of the King who is not to give any account for them as in this our case that he commits a subject and shews no cause for it The King commits and often shews no cause for it is sometimes generally Per specialâ— mandatum domini Regis sometimes Pro certis causis ipsum dominum Regem moventibus but if the King doe this shall it not bee good it is all one when the commitment is Per speciale mandatum domini Regis and when it is Pro certis causis ipsum dominum Regem moventibus and it is the same if the commitment be Certis de causis ipsum dominum Regem tangentibus And my Lord unlesse the Return to you doth open the secrets of the commitment your Lordship cannot judge whether the party ought by Law to be remaunded or delivered and therefore if the King allow and give warrant to those that make the Return that they shall expresse the cause of the commitment as many times he doth either for suspition of felony or making money or the like we shall shew your Lordship that in these causes this Court in his Jurisdiction were proper to try these criminall causes and your Lordship doth proceed in them although the commitment be Per speciale mandatum domini Regis which hath not secret in it in these causes for with the warrant he sendeth your Lordship the cause of the committing and when these warrants are made and brought into this Court your Lordship may proceed but if there be no cause expressed this Court hath always used to remaund them for it hath been used and it is to be intended a matter of State and that it is not ripe nor timely for it to appear My Lord the main fundamentall grounds of Arguments upon this case beginnes with Magna Charta from thence have grown states for explanation thereof severall Petitions of Parliament and Presidents for expedition I shall give answers to them all For Magna Charta in the 29 Chapter hath these words No Free-man shall be taken nor imprisoned or disseised of his freehold liberties nor free customes nor be outlawed or exiled nor any other way destroyed nor we will not passe upon him nor condemn him but by lawfull Judgement of his Peers or by the Law of the Realm My Lord this statute
in those times that the King might then give such commandment for committing the scope of this statute had two hands first that the Warden should forfeit his office and secondly that he should recompence the party In the fourth and fifth of Phil. Mar. Dier 162. it was resolved that if the Warden shall deliver a man out of prison without command hee forfeiteth his office and damage unto the party But if he have the command of the King that shall excuse the forfeiture of his office but he must bring the party hither and here these Gentlemen are now for that commandment of the King is no exception for him not to observe If he receives a writ from this Court to shew the Court from whence he receives his warrant it may excuse the forfeiture of his office but notwithstanding he is subject to the action of the party But I desire your Lordship to observe that part of the statute which the other party would not make use of which is that the King may command by writ or otherwise these were all the printed statutes cited by the Councell on the other side But because I would not misinterpret these statutes I thought it equall to desire your Lordship that they might be read Besides the printed statutes they mentioned Petitions by the Commons and the Answers to them of severall Kings in Parliament The first is Rot. pl. â—6 Ed. 3. Numero primo Numero vicesimo besides these two there is one other of 28 Ed. 3. nu 18. My Lord these three petitions and their answers the two first were mentioned by the Councell on the other side that in 28 E. 3. 28. I have produced all of them even to one purpose The Commons then petitioned the King that all the Statutes made in exposition of Magna Charta and of the Forest may be kept and observed The King makes answer that it shall be done And in one of the answers it is said If any man be grieved he may complain But what is all this to the point in question could there be any other answer to give life to these requests The King he is petitioned that some are injured he answers That if they complain they shall be relieved And now my Lord we are where we were to finde out the true meaning of Magna Charta for there is the foundation of our Case all this that hath been said concerneth other things and nothing to the thing in Question There is not a word either of the commitment of the King or commandment of the Councell in all the Statutes and Records And now my Lord I am at an end of those Statutes and come to that that was alledged and mentioned to be in 3 H. 6. 46. and if I could have found it I would have brought it but I could not finde it therefore if they have it I desire that they will shew it but I think they have it not and therefore I will let that goe And now my Lord I come to that which I insisted upon the Question as it was at first not whether the King or the Lords of the Councell can commit a man and shew no cause wherefore they do commit him but whether the ordinary Courts of Justice have power to bail him or no for that I will insist upon the Statute of Westm primo which I desire your Lordship may be read and then I will apply Cap. 15. Mainprise Br. 11 56 78 Dier 170. Vide Westm primo My Lord this Statute if I misunderstand it not is a full expression to this purpose of Magna Charta the scope whereof is to direct us in what case men imprisoned were to be bailed It was especially for direction to the Sheriffes and others but to say Courts of Justice are excluded from this Statute I conceive it cannot be It recites that whereas heretofore it was not resolved in what cases men were replevisable and in what cases not but onely in these four cases For the death of a man or by the commandement of the King or of his Justices or of the Forest My Lord I say that this Statute expresseth not the Law was made by this Statute that in these cases men were not replevisable but it expresseth that the Law was clear in these cases In these four cases it was clearly resolved before I pray you my Lord observe the time of the making of this Statute that of Magna Charta was made in the time of Henry the third and this of Westminster in the time of Edward the first so that the first it was made in the time of the same And my Lord if they had understood the Statute of Magna Charta in another sense would they not have expressed it so in this Statute was it not fitter for them then for us they being nearer the first making of Magna Charta then we are But certainly the Statute of Magna Charta was expounded at the time as I have shewed before if not without all doubt at the time of making of Westm primo The Parliament would not have been so carefull to provide for things of lesser moment and omit this of so great consequence if there had been any question of it In all times and ages Magna Charta hath been confirmed but they shew not any one Law that doth except against this positive Law of Westminster the first or any Acts of Parliament nay more in any printed books that in this case men should be replevisable My Lord if you know nothing printed or unprinted if any will desire to alter a course that always hath been held you will seek for presidents for the constant use and course is the best exposition of the Law it is not enough for me to say this it is unlesse I make it good First then I say they on the other side cannot cite one Book late Statute or other thing to prove That they that have been committed Per speciale mandatum domini Regis are bailable But my Lord I finde some to the contrary that they are not bailable and I will cite some of them and read of others for I would not in a case of that expectation that it should be thought that any thing should be mis-interpreted In the 33 of Hen. the sixth folio vicesimo tertio Robert Poynings Case he was committed Pro diversis causis ipsum dominum Regem tangent ' this alters not the case for it was as good as no cause for it was the Warrant Domini Regis and there is no question upon this But my Lord I know this is not the point in question The next thing I shall shew unto your Lordship is Pasch 21 Edvardi primo Rot. cla secund and this my Lord was near the time of making of the Statute of Westm prim and this president is to this purpose The Sheriffe of Leicestershire and Warwickshire for then there was but one Sheriffe to both those Shires did receive
commandement by Letters from the King That whereas the Earl of Warwick had commanded divers persons to the custody of the said Sheriffe the King sent a Letter to the said Sheriffe commanding that those who were committed to his custody by the Earl of Warwick he should shew no grace to them that is they should not be bailed The Sheriffe notwithstanding this command lets some of those prisoners to bail whereupon he was complained of in Parliament that he had done against the Kings commandement and he was condemned for it This was a Parliament I wonder this should be done in Parliament and that it was not said there That this commitment being done by the Kings commandment was not good no he was condemned in Parliament for it was one that did break the Statute of Westm primo My Lord the use that I make of this Record is this It recites that the Earl of Warwick committed divers it might be that he did commit them by direction from the King but the Record mentioneth not so much but it shews that the King by Letters commanded the Sheriffe that he should shew those persons no grace and yet he did he was examined upon this and by Parliament committed The next matter I will offer to your Lordships judgement for the true exposition of the Law in this case is the Book we call the Register an authority respected it is the foundation of all our Writs at the Common Law I bring not the Book Register fol. 77 c. In this Book there is one Writ saith thus Rex c. Quod replegiar ' fac ' A. nisi fuerit per speciale mandatum domini Regis Iustice Doderidge In what Writ is that De homine replegiando Atturney Generall Yea in the Writ De homine replegiando and there is another Writ directed to the Constable of Dover in the very same words by which it appears that they that are imprisoned by the Kings command non sunt replegiabiles F.N.B. 66. f. Master Fitzherbert a grave Judge and is in authority with us perusing these Writs expressed it in these words plainly There are some cases wherein a man cannot have this Writ although he be taken and detained in Prison as if he be taken by the death of a man or if he be taken by the commandement of the Kings Justices and mentions not chief Justice which I beleeve is to be intended not of the chief of the Court of Judicature but of the chief Justice of England for there was such a one in those days Thus my Lord you see the opinion of Master Fitzherbert in this case The next thing that I will shew your Lordship is the opinion of Master Stamford in his Pleas of the Crown Fol. 72. where he sets down the Statute of Westminster primo and then he addes That by this appears in four cases at the Common Law a man is not replevisable In those that were taken for the death of a man or by the commandment of the King or of his Justices or of the Forest And there he saith That the commandment of the King is to be intended either the commandment of his mouth or of his Councell which is incorporated to him and speak with the mouth of the King My Lord I shall desire no better Commentaries upon a Law then these reverent grave Judges who have put books of Law in Print and such Books as none I beleeve will say their judgements are weak The next thing I shall offer unto your Lordship is this that I cannot shew with so great authority as I have done the rest because I have not the thing it self by me but I will put it to your Lordships memory I presume you may well remember it It is the resolution of all the Judges which was given in the four and thirtieth of Queen Elizabeth it fell out upon an unhappy occasion which was thus The Judges they complain that Sheriffes and other Officers could not execute the processe of the Law as they ought for that the parties on whom such processe shall be executed were sent away by some of the Queens Councell that they could not be found the Judges hereupon petitioned the Lord Chancellor that he would be a suitor to her Majesty that nothing be done hereafter And thereupon the Judges were desired to shew in what cases men that were committed were not bailable whether upon the commitment of the Queen or any other The Judges make answer That if a man shall be committed by the Queen by her command or by the Privy Councell he is not bailable If your Lordship ask me what authority I have for this I can onely say I have it out of the Book of the Lord Anderson written with his own hand My Lord I pray you give me leave to observe the time when this was done It was in a time and we may truly call it a good time in the time of good Queen Elizabeth and yet we see there was then cause of complaint and therefore I would not have men think that we are now grown so bad as the opinion is we are for we see that then in those times there was cause of complaint and it may be more then is now This my Lord was the resolution of all the Judges and Barons of the Exchequer and not by some great one Now I will apply my self to that which hath been enforced by the Councell on the other side which was the reason that the Subject hath interest in this case My Lord I do acknowledge it but I must say that the Soveraign hath great interest in it too And sure I am that the first stone of Soveraignty was no sooner laid but this power was given to the Soveraign If you ask me whether it be unlimited my Lord I say it is not the question now in hand But the Common Law which hath long flourished under the Government of our King and his Progenitors Kings of this Realm have ever had that reverent respect of their Soveraign as that it hath concluded the King can doe no wrong And as it is in the Lord Berklies Case in Plowdens Com. 246. b. it is part of the Kings Prerogative that he can doe no wrong Title Travers 5. In the fourth of Edward the fourth fol. 25. the King cannot be a disseisor and so it is also in the Lord Berklies Case in 32 H. 8. Dier fol. 8. The King cannot usurp upon a Patron for the Common Law hath that reverent respect to him as that it cannot conceive he will doe any injury But the King commits a Subject and expresseth no cause of the commitment what then shall it be thought that there is no cause why he should be committed Nay my Lord the course of all times hath been to say there is no cause expressed and therefore the matter is not ripe and thereupon upon the Courts of Judicature have ever rested satisfied therewith they would not search into it My
Lords there be Arcana Dei Arcana Imperii and they that search too farre into them and make themselves busier with them then their places do require they will make themselves c. I will say no more but I shall be able to shew that there shall as much prejudice come to the Kingdome if God direct not the heart of the King which is in the hand of God as the Rivers of waters I say there may as much hazard come to the Common-wealth in many other things with which the King is trusted as in this particular there can accrew to the Subject If a Treason be committed as it was not long agoe nor farre removed from our memories since there was a Treason and the Actors thereof fled some to the Court of Rome some to Bruxells when it was to be put in execution the Treason being discovered one is apprehended upon suspition of it and is put into the Tower and there he lieth and thinketh the time very long and I cannot blame him It may be he is innocent and thereupon he brings a Habeas Corpus and by vertue of that Writ he is brought hither and will your Lordship think it fit or convenient to bail him when the accusation against him must come from beyond the Sea I think you will rather so respect the proceedings of the State as that you will beleeve these things are done with a cause then inquire further of them Peradventure some great misdemeanour may be committed and some of the parties make away so as Proclamation cannot overtake them and some are taken it is fit that they that are in prison should be tried before the principall be taken I will give you an instance that lately was put into my minde There be some Prisoners in the Tower at this present which were put in thither when they were very young If they should bring an Habeas Corpus they were imprisoned for State matters will your-Lordship deliver them No in that the State doth not think it fit to send them back into their own Countries You will esteem so reverently of the State for committing children that you will beleeve that there is great reason of State so to doe or else they would not doe it Many inconveniences may follow if it should be otherwise It may be divers men doe suffer wrongfully in prison but therefore shall all prisoners be delivered that were a great mischief No doubt but the Kings Power is absolute over his coins if then he shall command his coin shall be turned to brasse or leather I confesse it were inconvenient but if the King would do it the answer that I can make is that he would not undo the Kingdome but can your Lordship hinder it as being an inconvenience if he would doe it the Cinque Ports are free for traffique for all his Subjects but the King in his Cabinet understands there is danger of Warre to come upon this Kingdome thereupon he shuts the Ports that no man can goe out shall the Merchant say this is injustice in the King And as in this so in many other particulars this may appear but I will not goe too high and therefore we are too wise nay we are too foolish in undertaking to examine matters of State to which we are not born Now my Lord I come to our Book cases by which it appears what our King may doe and nothing can be so against it but he will not doe it the King may pardon all Traitors and felons and if he should doe it may not the Subjects say If the King doe this the bad will overcome the good but shall any say the King cannot do this no we may onely say he will not doe this The King may exempt men from the Office of Sheriffe is not this inconvenient and may it not be said he may exempt ten in a Shire and then the burthen of the Country shall rest upon the meaner sort of people can any man say more to this then that he will not do it Inheritances are to be decided upon triall the King may exempt private men from being of a Jury but if he exempt all men who shall try our Causes for it is to be presumed that he will not doe it But to our Case by the Statute of Magna Charta no man shall be put out of his free-hold c. But if the King will doe it must not the party that is so put out goe to the King by Petition But you will say it is a Petition of Right and it may be these gentlemens is so admit it be yet when such a Petition comes to the King must it not be answered with these words Soit droit fait al parte and when that the King will give that Warrant for it then they must have it done and not before And this may answer a perpetuall imprisonment and God forbid that this should be so And now my Lord I will trouble you no longer but I will goe to presidents Presidents I know prevail much and rule in many cases and if the presidents they cite were not mis-interpreted I should think they had said a great deal But my Lord I will answer their presidens with presidents nay I will shew your Lordship that the presidents which they have cited are no presidents for them And my Lord it is a dangerous thing for men in matters of weight to avouch presidents with confidence when they make nothing for them for my Lord presidents are now become almost Proclamations for they already run up and down the Town and yet they know but part of them and not all and I think if they knew all men would be more modest But my Lord I will now come to these presidents where I may say they have not dealt freely with me for they have shewed me many presidents more then they mentioned here and it may be they have done the like unto your Lordship They alledged but eight presidents before your Lordship but they have brought sixteen unto me for these eight mentioned here I will take them in order as they were cited and answer The first president they cited was in Henry the eight Rot. 9. one Harrison we have the Record here to shew your Lordship that he was committed for suspition of felony which was expressed in the Warrant and then my Lord this is clear if the King or the Lords of the Councell will expresse any thing within your Lordships jurisdiction there is good ground for your proceedings But when there is nothing expressed whether you will judge what the cause of the Warrant is I will leave to your Lordships judgement but it appears this was the cause and that he was delivered The next president was 22 H. 8. Rot. 57. and it was Parkers case and it is true that his commitment appeared to be Per speciale mandatum domini Regis but it was also proposed to bee Pro pace suspicione feloniae and the