Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	call_v	king_n	kingdom_n	1,629	5	5.4957	4	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

if you will not have this filed there must go out a new Habeas corpus and thereupon must be another return Sergeant Bramston My Lord we desire some time that we may be advised whether we may proceed or not Lord Chief Justice Hide Will you submit your self to the King Sir Thomas Darnell My Lord I desire some time to advise of my proceedings I have moved many men and offered to retain them of my Councell but they refuse me and I can get none to be of councell with me without your assistance Chief Justice You shall have what Councell assigned you you will have or desire for no offence will be taken against any man that shall advise you in your proceedings in Law Atturney Generall I will passe my word they that do advise you shall have no offence taken against them for it and I shall give my consent to any way that you shall desire either that it may be filed or that it may not be filed for if you desire Justice you shall have it and the King will not deny it but if it shall be conceived as it is rumored that there was a deniall of Justice on the Kings part you must know that his Majesty is very tender of that And for the Gent. now he is brought hither I conceive but yet I leave it to your Lordships judgement that the writ must be filed and you must either deliver him or remand him or else it will be an escape in the Warden of the Fleet. Sir Thomas Darnell I would not have it thought that I should speak any thing against my Prince and for those words I doe deny them for upon my conscience they never came into my thought perhaps you shall find that they have been spoken by some other but not by any of us Chief Justice Hide Sir you have made a fair answer and I doubt not but Mr. Attorney will make the like relation of it you move for the not filing of the Writ if you refuse to have it filed whereby it should not be of Record you must have no Copy of it but if you will have it filed you shall have a Copy of it and further time to speak to it choose whether of them you will Sergeant Bramston We desire to have the return read once more and it was read as before Sergeant Bramston So as the writ may not be filed we will desire no copy of the return Chief Justice Hide Then the Gent. must return back again into the custody of the Warden of the Fleet and therefore I ask you whether you desire to come hither again upon this Writ or will you have a new one Sir Thomas Darnell I desire your Lordship that I may have time to consider of it Chief Justice Hide Then on Gods name take your own time to think of it Michaelis 3º Caroli Regis Thursday 22 November Sir John Corbet Baronet Sir Walter Earle Sir John Henningham Sir Edward Hampden Knights were brought to the Barre Sergeant Bramston MAy it please your Lordship to hear the return read or shall I open it Chief Justice Hide Let it be read Mr. Keeling read the return being the same as that of Sir Thomas Darnell May it please your Lordship I shall humbly move upon this return in the behalf of Sir John Henningham with whom I am of Councell it is his petition that he may be bailed from his imprisonment it was but in vain for me to move that to a Court of Law which by Law cannot be granted and therefore in that regard that upon this return it will be questioned whether as this return is made the Gent. may be bailed or not I shall humbly offer up to your Lordship the case and some reasons out of mine understanding arising out of the return it self to satisfie your Lordship that these Prisoners may and as their case is ought to be bailed by your Lordship The exception that I take to this return is as well to the matter and substance of the return as to the manner and legall form thereof the exceptions that I take to the matter is in severall respects That the return is too generall there is no sufficient cause shewn in speciall or in generall of the commitment of this Gentleman and as it is insufficient for the cause so also in the time of the first imprisonment for howsoever here doth appear a time upon the second warrant from the Lords of the Councell to detain him still in prison yet by the return no time can appear when he was first imprisoned though it be necessary it should be shewn and if that time appear not there is no cause your Lordship should remand him and consequently he is to be delivered Touching the matter of the return which is the cause of his imprisonment it is expressed to be Per speciale mandatum domini Regis This is too generall and uncertain for that it is not manifest what kind of command this was Touching the legall form of the return it is not as it ought to be fully and positively the return of the Keeper himself only but it comes with a significavit or prout that he was committed Per speciale mandatum domini Regis as appeareth by warrant from the Lords of the Councell not of the King himself and that is not good in legall form For the matter and substance of the return it is not good because there ought to be a cause of that imprisonment This writ is the means and the only means that the Subject hath in this and such like case to obtain his liberty there are other writs by which men are delivered from restraint as that de homine replegiando but extends not to this cause for it is particularly excepted in the body of the writ de manucaptione et de cautione admittenda but they lie in other cases but the writ of Habeas corpus is the only means the subject hath to obtain his liberty and the end of this writ is to return the cause of the imprisonment that it may be examined in this Court whether the parties ought to be discharged or not but that cannot be done upon this return for the cause of the imprisonment of this Gentleman at first is so far from appearing particularly by it that there is no cause at all expressed in it This writ requires that the cause of the imprisonment should be returned and if the cause be not specially certified by it yet should it at the last be shewn in generall that it may appear to the Judges of the Court and it must be expressed so farre as that it may appear to be none of those causes for which by the Law of the Kingdome the Subject ought not to be imprisoned and it ought to be expressed that it was by presentment or indictment and not upon petition or suggestion made to the King and Lords which is against the statute made in the 25 Ed. 3. c. 4. 42

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 special● 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

E. 3. c. 3. By the statute 25 Ed. 3. cap. 4. It is ordained and established that no man from henceforth shall be taken by petition or suggestion made to the King or his Councell but by indictment or course of Law and accordingly it was enacted 42 E. ● cap. 3. the title of which statute is None shall be put to answer an accusation made to the King without presentment Then my Lord it being so although the cause should not need to be expressed in such manner as that it may appear to be none of these causes mentioned in the statute or else the Subject by this return loseth the benefit and advantage of these Laws which be their birth-right and inheritance but in this return there is no cause at all appearing of the first commitment and therefore it is plain that there is no cause for your Lordship to remand him but there is cause you should deliver him since the writ is to bring the body and the cause of the imprisonment before your Lordship But it may be objected that this writ of Habeas corpus doth not demand the cause of the first commitment but of the detaining onely and so the writ is satisfied by the return for though it shew no cause of the first commitment but of detaining only yet it declareth a cause why the Gentleman is detained in prison this is no answer nor can give any satisfaction for the reason why the cause is to be returned is for the Subjects liberty that if it shall appear a good and sufficient cause to your Lordship then to be remanded if your Lordship think and finde it insufficient hee is to bee enlarged This is the end of this writ and this cannot appeare to your Lordship unlesse the time of the first commitment be expressed in the return I know that in some cases the time is not materiall as when the cause of the commitment is and that so especially returned as that the time is not materiall it is enough to shew the cause without the time as after a conviction or triall had by Law But when it is in this manner that the time is the matter it self for intend what cause you will of the commitment yea though for the highest cause of treason there is no doubt but that upon the return thereof the time of it must appear for it being before triall and conviction had by Law it is but an accusation and he that is onely accused and the accusation ought by Law to be let to bail But I beseech your Lordship to observe the consequence of this Cause If the Law be that upon this return this Gentleman should be remanded I will not dispute whether or no a man may 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 there can be no remedy for the Subject and therefore this return cannot stand with the Laws of the Realm or that of Magna Carta Nor with the statute of 28 Ed. 3. ca. 3. for if a man be not baileable 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 appears but if this shall be a good cause to remand these Gentlemen to prison they may lie there this seven years longer and seven years after them nay all the days 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. 3. xfol 36. the Laws are called the great inheritance of every Subject and the inheritance of inheritances without which inheritance we have no inheritance These are the exceptions I desire to offer up 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 statute 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 this 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

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

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