Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	action_n	false_a	great_a	136	3	2.0658	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75552	The arguments upon the writ of habeas corpus, in the Court of Kings Bench. Wherein, are learnedly discussed, not onely the severall branches of the said writ, but also many authorities as well of the common as statute law: and divers ancient and obscure records most amply and elaborately debated and cleared. Together, with the opinion of the court thereupon. Whereunto is annexed, the petition of Sir Iohn Elliot Knight, in behalf of the liberty of the subject.	Eliot, John, Sir, 1592-1632.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.	1649 (1649)	Wing A3649; Thomason E543_1; ESTC R204808	64,168	98

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

here by me and I shall not take it ill if they right me Therefore I must tell you there hath been many points learnedly argued at the Bar which we shall not touch or give our resolution upon but bend our selves to the point in judgement here These three Statutes as for example the statute of Magna Charta 25 E. 3. and 36 E. 3. and the statute of Westminster primo divers other statutes that have been alledged particularly disputed of we all acknowledge and resolve that they are good Laws and that they be in force but the interpretation of them at this time belongs not to us for we are driven to another point and though the meaning of them belongs to the one way or the other yet our judgement must be the same for that which is now to be judged by us is this whether one that is committed by the Kings authority and no cause declared of his commitment according as here it is upon this return whether we ought to deliver him by bail or to remaund him back againe Wherein you must know this which your Councell will tell you we can take notice onely of this return and when the case appears to come to us no otherwise then by the return wee are not bound to examine the truth of the return but the sufficiency of it for there is a great difference between the sufficiency and the truth We cannot judge upon rumours nor reports but upon that which is before us on record and therefore the Return is examinable by us whether it be sufficient or not The exceptions which have been taken to this Return were two the one for the form the other for the substance For the form whether it be formally returned or no for it is not returned as it is said positively and absolutely that they were committed by the King but as it appears by a warrant from the Lords of the Councell and then there seems to bee a contradiction in the return For first it saith they were committed by the Kings command and afterwards it alledgeth it to be by a warrant of the Lords of the Councell and so it is repugnant Now we conceive that this is a positive and an absolute Return and so the reason is that he first returns that they are detained by the speciall command of the King and if he had ceased there it had been positive now there follows that this was signified to them by the Lords of the Councell this is returned to ascertain the Court that he returned the cause truly and to shew us that we should not doubt the verity of this return not to shew to us that he hath no knowledge of the cause but by the signification of the Lords of the Councell according to that case of the Bishop of Norwich touching the excommunication he must testifie his own knowledge and not continetur in Archivis so a Sheriffe must not return quod mandavi ball ' c. and he gives this answer unlesse it be the Bailiffe of a Liberty that hath return of writs And so here if the Warden of the Fleet had returned that the Lords of the Councell had signified unto him that his prisoner was detained by the Kings commandment that had been sufficient but when he returns positively at the first that is done by the Kings direction hee shews afterwards that which should make it appear that he deals not falsly which might have been omitted but being mentioned that that is the scope of it and not otherwise the return is good and positive Now then to the other objections because he speaks nothing of the caption why they were taken you know it is the usuall return of all Officers to answer the point in question there is not one word in the Writ that demands the cause why they were taken but why they are detained so that the point in the Writ is sufficiently answered for though sometimes it is necessary that the cause of the caption should be certified yet sometimes it is superfluous but in our case the cause of the detention is sufficiently answered which is the demand of the Writ and therefore we resolve that the form of this Return is good The next thing is the maine point in Law whether the substance or matter of the Return be good or no wherein the substance is this he doth certifie that they are detained in prison by the speciall command of the King and whether this be good in Law or no that is the question To this purpose if you remember this point I say you did not cite any Book or Case in print but many presidents which I confesse are as strong as any Book Cases for Book Cases I confesse are taken and selected out of the Records and Resolution of Judges and that is it which is in our Books though they be not so obvious for every eye but are found out by pains and diligent search and being produced are of the same and equall authority with our Book Cases but this must be when Records are brought faithfully and entirely so that the Court may adjudge of them Now the presidents you urged them to be so many and so fully to the point that wee may thereby see that it is good to hear what can be said on both sides and for to heare all and view the Records themselves and therefore we required you to bring the Records to us and you did so and you brought us more then you mentioned here and we have perused them all that thereby we might see whether the Court be faithfully dealt withall or no for though Counsellors may urge a Book for their own advantage yet it is the duty of the Court to see and distinguish of their allegations as the truth may appear This I told you yesterday when I told you your presidents warranted not so much as you urge them for for if you be remembred you urge some presidents to be that where men were committed by the King or by the Lords of the Councell and no cause expressed why they were committed they were delivered This is in effect our case if the presidents affirm that when a man is committed by the Kings command and no just cause is shewn that upon such a generall Return the party shall ipso facto be delivered for if the Return be not amended that he shall be discharged For although men come with prepared minds yet the preparation of every mans heart ought to submit to the truth and by the presidents you shall see if it be so as you have alledged but this I dare affirm that no one of the Records that you have cited doth inforce what you have concluded out of them no not one and therefore as you have cited Records and Presidents Presidents shall judge this case I will shew you how they differ from the Records you have concluded when the King hath committed one and expresseth not the cause the