arrest by speciall command or otherwise and the answer was that the assent of the Lords established and ordained that the said Charter and other Statutes should be put in execution according to the petitition and that is without any disturbance by arrest by speciall command or otherwise for it was granted as it was petitioned In the same year for they were very carefull of this matter and it was necessary it should be so for it was then an usuall thing to take men by writs quibusdam de causis and many of these words caused many Acts of Parliament and it may be some of these writs may be shewn and I say in the same year they complained that men were imprisoned by speciall command and without indictment or other legall course of Law and they desired that thing may not be done upon men by speciall command against the great Charter The King makes answer that he is well pleased therewith that was the first answer and for the future he hath added farther if any man be grieved let him complain and right shall be done unto him This my Lord is an explanation of the great Charter as also the Statute of 37 Ed. 3. ch 18. is a commentary upon it that men should not be committed upon suggestion made to the King without due proofs of Law against them and so it is enacted twice in one year We find more printed Books as in Henry the sixth Minus de facts Fitz. 182. which is a strong case under favour in an action of Trespasse for cutting down trees the defendant saith that the place where the trees are cut is parcell of the Manor of B whereof the King is seised in fee and that the King did command him to cut them and the opinion of the Court was that this was no good plea without shewing the specialty of the command and they said if the King command me to arrest a man and I arrest him he shall have an action of false imprisonment against me altough it were done in the Kings presence In 1 Ioh. cap. 7. fol. 46. it is in print and there we leave it Hussey Chief Justice saith that Sir Iohn Markham told King Edward the fourth that he could not arrest a man upon suspition of felony or treason as any of his Subjects might because if he should wrong a man by such arrest the parties could have no remedy against him if any man shall stand upon it here is a signification of the Kings pleasure nor to have the cause of the commitment examined he hath here another signification of his pleasure by writ whereby the party is brought hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum that he hath made your Lordship Judge of that that should be objected against this Gentleman and either to punish him or to deliver him and if here be no cause shewn it is to be intended that the party is to be delivered and that it is the Kings pleasure it should be so and the writ is a sufficient warrant for the doing of it there being no cause shewn of the imprisonment and now my Lord I will speak a word to the writ of de homine replegiando and no other writ for that was the common writ and the four causes expressed in that Statue to wit the death of a man the command of the King or his Justices or Forrest were excepted in that writ before that Statute made as appears Bracton 133. so that the writ was at the Common Law before that Statute And it appears by our Books that if a man be brought hither by an Habeas corpus though he were imprisoned De morte hominis as in the 21 of Edward the fourth 7. Winkfield was bailed here this Court bailed him for he was brought hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum and not to lie in prison God knows how long and if the Statute should be expounded otherwise there were no bailing men outlawed or breakers of prisons for they are not within this Statute and yet this Court doth it at pleasure But plainly by the Statute it self it appears that it meant only to the common writ for the preamble recites that the Sheriffs and other have taken and kept in prison persons detected of felony and let out to plevin such as were not reprisable to grieve the one party and to the gain of the other and forasmuch as before this time it was not determined what prisoners were reprisable which not but onely in certain cases were expressed therefore it is ordained c. Now this is no more but for direction of the keepers of the prisons for it leaves the matter to the discretion of the Judges whether bailable or no not of the Judges for when the Statute hath declared who are repleviable who are not as men outlawed have abjured the Realm Proves such as be taken in the manner breakers of prisons burners of houses makers of false money counterfeiting of the Kings Seal and the like it is then ordained that if the Sheriff or any other let any go at large by surety that is not reprisable if he be Sheriff Constable or any other that hath the keeping of prisons and thereof be attainted he shall lose his office and fee for ever so that it extends to the common Goalers and keepers of prisons to direct them in what cases they shall let men to bail and in what cases not and that they shall not be Judges to whom to let to replevin and whom to keep in prison but it extends not to the Judges for if the makers of the Statute had meant them in it they should have put a pain upon them also So then I conclude upon these under your Lordships favour that as this case is there should have been a cause of the commitment expressed for these Gentlemen are brought hither by writ ad subjiciendum if they be charged and ad recipiendum if they be not charged and therefore in regard there is no charge against them whereupon they should be detained in prison any longer we desire that they may be bailed or discharged by your Lordship The Argument of Master Selden upon the Habeas corpus My Lords I am of Councell with Sir Edmond Hampden his case is the same with the other two Gentlemen I cannot hope to say much after that that hath been said yet if it shall please your Lordship I shall remember you of so much as is befallen my lot Sir Edmond Hampden is brought hither by a writ of Habeas corpus and the keeper of the Gate-house hath returned upon the writ that Sir Edmond Hampden is detained in prison per speciale mandatum Domini Regis mihi significatum per Warrantum duorum Privati Concilii dicti domini Regis and then he recites the warrants of the Lords of the Councell which is that they do will and require him to detain this Gentleman still in prison letting him know that his first imprisonment c. May it
the Secretarie Super totam maternam It is evident that the Colledge at Clarkenwell is a Colledge of Iesuits holden under a Forreign Supream power Sir Francis Seymour taxeth Mr. Attorneys affection and judgement in this and also declareth continual Letters from Mr. Attorney in stay of proceedings against Recusants You see in this how slightly Mr. Attorney hath put over a business of this weight to Mr. Long. Cross the Pursevant saith there was an Eleventh man in the New Prison and the Keeper of that Prison said he was delivered by Warrant from the Councel-board Sir Iohn Elliot No man could find a way on which to vent his malice so much to this Church and State as by protecting these men That this may be fixed home on that great Lord of Dorset that I fear hath defiled his fingers too far in this business and on Mr. Attorney whom I am sorrie I have occasion to nominate so often in this matter of Religion in stopping of proceedings against Recusants Mr. Recorder is ordered to be sent for and to be examined in this rather than to be sent for having had the Honor formerly to sit in the Chair Secretarie Cook saith we shall find that the King being mercifull in case of shedding bloud gave direction for the repriving of those Priests Sir Iohn Elliot I doubt not when we shall declare the depth of this to his Majestie but he will render them to judgement that gave him advice herein Sir Nath. Ritch These Iesuits are bound by Sureties to answer further at the Councel-board I wish these Bonds would produce these Men that by examination of them we may find out the whole pack of their Benefactors and Countenancers Mr. Long saith that he offering at Session the Evidence by order from M. Attorney the Lord Chief Justice Richardson interrupted him and told him he must speak to the point in issue whether Priests or no Priests and hereupon the Judges consulted amongst themselves Mr. Selden saith he was present at the Sessions and plain Treason was proved and nothing done in it The further examination of this is referred to a select Committee Munday 16. A Petition of Complaint against Sir Henry Martin for disposing of the goods of one Brown who died intestate to his own private use Sir Henry Martin If I prove not my self as clear of this as St. Iohn Baptist let me be reckoned to be a Jew Referred to the Committee for course of Justice At the Committee for Religion MAster Stroud That the Lord Chief Justice may be called to give an account of his stay of Justice in the execution of the condemned Priests which he ought not to have done though his Majestie signified his pleasure to the contrarie Chancellor of the Dutchie That was a thing ordinarie for a Chief Justice to do in Queen Elisabeths and King Iames times as also a Declaration in the Star-chamber that all condemned Priests should be sent to the Castle of Wisbitch and from hence though the King had given no order for the replevie he might have taken his Warrant for his proceedings Mr. Selden reporteth from the Committee for the further examination of Mr. Long concerning the proceeding at Newgate against the Iesuits whereby plainly appeareth that the evidence tendered in the Court at Newgate did plainly testifie these men to be Priests yet the Lord Chief Justice Richardson did reject the same against the sence of the rest of the Judges and Justices present whereby it is plain he dealt under-hand to some of the Iesuites Ordered That two Members shall be sent to each Judge that were present at the Sessions at Newgate who were said to be the Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench the Chief Justice of the common-Common-pleas Justice Whitlock Justice Iones and Justice Crook Tuseday 17. MAster Chambers preferreth another Petition in complaint of a Warrant newly proceeding from the Councel-board for the stay of the Merchants goods unless they payed the duties that were due in King Iames his time Sir Iohn Elliot You see as by the last answer from the Exchequer the Merchants were bounded within the Court to sue for their own so they are now debarred from all means of coming by their own It is Ordered that the Customers shall attend the House on Thurseday next In the mean time it is referred to the former Committee Ordered a Committee of six to Collect and take all the names at the Fast and to meet at eight of the Clock in the Morning Ordered That a Committee shall consider of a speedie way to put the Merchants in Possession of their goods without which it is warned we sit here in vain Sir Thomas Hobbie Reported from my Lord Chief Justice Hide that he doth not remember any Papers tendred by Mr. Long were rejected or that he affirmed they were dangerous persons and a Colledge of Iesuits but howsoever Mr. Long tendred nothing to prove them so but that he had diverse papers in his hand Mr. Wansford Reported from the Lord Chief Justice Richardson who saith that Mr. Long did discourse of the place and house but did not press the reading of any papers neither doth he know what was in the papers neither knew he any thing to prove the persons Priests Sir Thomas Barrington delivereth the answer of Justice Iones who saith the same papers were offered by Mr. Long but he knoweth not the Contents thereof nor the reason why they were refused but he came late for want of his health and the second day was not there at all The like was Reported by Sir Will. Constable from Justice Crook Sir Thomas Barrington saith Although that Justice Iones did not write the name of my Lord Chief Justice Richardson yet in discourse named him to be the man that said The point in proof is not whether they be Priests or no Priests Sir Nath. Ritch Here is a charge of a high nature on the Judges by Mr. Long. That Mr. Long now may make good his Charge or suffer for it for there were witnesses enough in the Court. Ordered Mr. Long to be here on Thurseday Morning Ordered That the Justices about this time shall be required to deliver in the names of all Recusants remaining about the Town and their conditions and what Countrey they be It is Moved That the Gentlemen of the Inns of Court and of the Chancerie may give in their knowledge what Recusants are there Sir Iohn Stanhope That the Court may give in the names of Recusants there likewise by what Warrant these be about the Town and what publick charge of Office any of these persons have also what Priests and Iesuites are in any prison in London for they have libertie sometimes to go five miles to say Mass. Wednesday 18. A Publick Fast was kept by this House in Westminster where were three Sermons Thursday 19. MAster Dawes one of the Customers called in to answer the point of Priviledge in taking Mr. Rolles his goods being a Member of this
afterwards be attainted yet the King shall not have them untill he have satisfied that for which they were distreined And if in these Cases where the owners of the goods are such capitall offendours the King cannot have them much lesse shall he have them when the owner is innocent and no offendour Nay I may well say that almost every leaf and page of all the volumes of our Common Law prove this right of propriety this distinction of meum and tuum aswell between King and Subject as one Subject and another and therefore my Conclusion follows that if the Prerogative extend not neither to Lands nor to Goods then à fortiori not to the Person which is more worth then either lands or goods as I said And yet I agree that by the very law of Nature service of the Person of the Subject is due to his Soveraigne but this must be in such things which are not against the law of Nature but to have the body imprisoned without any cause declared and so to become in bondage I am sure is contrary unto and against the law of Nature and therefore not to be inforced by the Soveraigne upon his Subjects 3. My next reason is drawn ab inutili incommodo For the Statute de frangentibus prisonam made 1 E. 2. is quod nullus qui prisonam fregerit subeat judicium vitae vel membrorum pro fractione prisonae tantum nisi causa pro qua captus imprisonetur tale Iudicium requirat Whence this Conclusion is clearly gathered That if a man be committed to prison without declaring what cause and then if either Malefactour do break the prison or the Gaoler suffer him to escape albeit the prisoner so escaping had committed Crimen laesae majestatis yet neither the Gaoler nor any other that procured his escape by the Law suffer any corporall punishment for setting him at large which if admitted might prove in consequence a matter of great danger to the Common-wealth 4. My next reason is drawn ab Regis honore from that great honour the Law doth attribute unto soveraigne Majesty and therefore the Rule of Law is that Solum Rex hoc non potest facere quod non potest juste agere And therefore if a Subject hath the donation and the King the presentation to a Church whereunto the King presents without the Subjects nomination here the quare impedit lies against the Incumbent and the King is in Law no disturber And Hussey chief Justice in 1 H. 7. fol. 4. saith that Sir Iohn Markham told King Edw. 4. he could not arrest a man either for treason or fellony as a Subject might because that if the King did wrong the party could not have his Action against him What is the reason that an Action of false imprisonment lies against the Sheriff if he doth not return the Kings Writ by which he hath taken the body of the Subject but this because the Writ doth breviter enarrare causam captionis which if it doth not it shall abate and is void in Law and being returned the party when he appears may know what to answer and the Court upon what to judge And if the Kings Writ under his great Seal cannot imprison the Subject unlesse it contains the cause shall then the Kings warrant otherwise doe it without containing the cause that his Judges upon return thereof may likewise judge of the same either to remain or judge the partie imprisoned I should argue this point more closely upon the statute of Magnae Charta 29. quod nullus liber homo imprisonetur the statute of West 1. cap. 15. for letting persons to bail and the Judgements lately given in the Kings Bench but the later of these statutes referring having been by that honourable Gent. to whom the Professours of the Law both in this and all succeding ages are and will be much bound already expounded unto us and that also fortified by those many contemporary Expositions and Judgements by him learnedly cited and there being many learned Lawyers here whose time I will not waste who were present and some of them perhaps of councell in the late Cause adjudged in the Kings Bench where you to whose person I now speak do well know I was absent being then of councel in a cause in another Court and my practice being in the Country farre remote from the treasure of Antiquity and Records conducing to the clearing of this point Therefore the narrowness of my understanding commends unto me sober ignorance rather then presumptuous knowledge and also commands me no further to trouble your Patience But I will conclude with that which I find reported of Sir Iohn Davis who was the Kings Serjeant and so by the duty of his place would no doubt maintain to his uttermost the Prerogatives of the King his royall Master and yet it was by him thus said in those Reports of his upon the case of Tavistry Customs That the Kings of England alwayes have had a Monarchy Royall and not a Monarchy Seignorall where under the first saith he the Subjects are Free-men and have propriety in their goods and free-hold and inheritance in their Lands but under the later they are as Villains and Slaves and have proprietie in nothing And therefore saith he when a Royall Monarch makes a new Conquest yet if he receives any of his Nations ancient Inhabitants into his protection they and their heirs after them shall enjoy their Lands and Liberties according to the Law And there he voucheth this President and Judgement following given before William the Conquerour himself viz. That one Sherborn at the time of the Conquest being owner of a Castle and lands in Norfolk the Conquerour gave the same to one Warren a Norman and Sherborn dying the Heir clayming the same by descent according to the Law it was before the Conquerour himself adjudged for the Heir and that the gift thereof by the Conquerour was void If then it were thus in the Conquerour's time by his own sentence and judgement and hath so continued in all the successions of our Kings ever since what doubt need we have but that his most excellent Majestie upon our humble petition prostrated at his feet which as was well said is the best passage to his heart will vouchsafe unto us our ancient Liberties and Birthrights with a through reformation of this and other just grievances And so I humbly crave pardon of this honourable House that I have made a short Lesson long Sir Benjamin Ruddier's Speech March 22. 1627. Mr. Speaker OF the mischiefs that have lately fallen upon us by the late distractions here is every man sensible and that may ensue the like which God forbid we may easily see and too late repent The eyes of Christendome are upon us and as we speed here so go the Fortunes of our selves our Friends and of our Religion That the Dangers were not reall but pretended we all heartily wish but feel the contrary
these is the Case of S r Samuel Saltonstall It is Hill 12. Iacob He was committed to the Fleet per mandatum Domini Regis and besides by the Court of Chauncery for disobeying an order of that Court and is returned upon his habeas Corpus to be therefore detained And it is true that a remittitur is entred in the Roll but it is only a remittitur prisonae predict without quousque secundum legem deliberatus fuerit And in truth it appeares in the Record that the Court gave the Warden of the Fleet 3 severall dayes at severall times to amend his Return and in the interim remittitur prisonae predict still Certainly if the Court had thought that the Return had been good they would not have given so many severall dayes to have amended it For if that mandatum Domini Regis had been sufficient in the Case why needed it to have been amended The ninth and last of these is Trinit 13. Iacob Rot. 71. the Case of the said S r Samuel Saltonstall He is returned by the Warden of the Fleet as in the Case before and generally remittitur as in the Roll which proves nothing at all that therefore the Court thought he might not by Law be enlarged and besides in both Cases he stood committed also for disobeying an order in Chauncery These are all that have been pretended to the contrary in this great point and upon the view of them thus opened to your Lordships it is plain that there is not one not so much as one at all that proveth any such thing as that persons committed by the Command of the King or of the Lords of the Councell without cause shewed might not be enlarged but indeed the most of them expresly prove rather the contrary Now my Lords having thus gone through the Presidents of Record that concern this point of either side before I come to the other kind of Presidents which are the solemn resolution of Judges in former times I shall as I am commanded by the House of Commons represent unto your Lordships somewhat else that they have thought very considerable with which they have met while they were in a most carefull enquirie of whatsoever concerned them in this great Question It is my Lords a draught of an Entry of a Judgement in that great Case lately adjudged in the Court of Kings Bench when divers Gentlemen imprisoned per speciale mandat Domini Regis were by the Award and Judgement of the Court after solemn debate sent back to Prison because it was expresly said that they could not in Justice deliver them though they prayed to be bailed The case is famous and well known to your Lordships therefore I need not further mention it And as yet indeed there is no Judgement entred upon the Roll but there is room enough for any kind of Judgement to be entred But my Lords there is a form of a Judgement a most unusuall one such a one as never was in any such Case before used for indeed there was never before any Case so adjudged and this drawn up by a chief Clark of that Court by direction of M r Attorney Generall as the House was informed by the Clark in which the reason of the Judgement and the remanding of those Gentlemen is expressed in such sort as if it should be declared upon Record for ever that the Law were that no man could be enlarged from imprisonment that stood committed by any such absolute command The draught is only in S r Iohn Henningham's Case being one of the Gentlemen that was remanded and it was made for a form for all the rest The words of it are after the usuall Entrie of a Curia advisur vult for a time that visis return predict nec non diversis antiquis Recordis in Curia hic remanent consimiles casus concernentibus maturaque deliberatione inde prius habita eo quod nulla specialis causa captionis five detentionis predict Johannis exprimitur sed generaliter quod detentus est in prisona predict per speciale mandatum Domini Regis ideo predictus Johannes remittitur perfato Custodi Marr. hospitii predict salvo custodiend quousque c. that is quousque secundum legem deliberatus fuerit And if that Court which is the highest for ordinary Justice cannot deliver him secundum legem what Law is there I beseech you my Lords that can be sought for in any other inferiour Court to deliver him Now my Lords because this draught if it were entred in the Roll as it was prepared for no other purpose would be a great declaration contrary to the many Acts of Parliament already cited contrary to all Presidents of former times and to all reason of Law to the utter subversion of the chiefest Liberty and Right belonging to every Free-man of the Kingdome and for that especially also it supposeth that divers ancient Records had been looked into by the Court in like Cases by which Records their Judgements were directed whereas in truth there is not one Record at all extant that with any colour not so much indeed as with any colour warrants the Judgement therefore the House of Commons thought fit also that I should with the rest that hath been said shew this draught also to your Lordships I come now to the other kind of Presidents that is solemn Resolutions of Judges which being not of Record remain only in authentick Copies But of this kind there is but one in this Case that is a resolution of all the Judges in England in the time of Queen Elizabeth It was in the foure and thirtieth yeare of her reign when divers persons had been committed by absolute command and delivered by the Justices of one Bench or the other whereupon it was desired that the Judges would declare in what Cases persons committed by such Command were to be enlarged by them The resolution hath been variously cited and variously apprehended The House of Commons therefore desiring with all care to enforme themselves as fully of the truth of it as possibly they might got into their hands from a member of their House a book of selected Cases collected by a learned and reverend Chief Justice of the Common Pleas that was one of them that gave the Resolution which is entred at large in that book I mean the Lord Chief Justice Anderson It is written in that book in his own hand as the rest of the book is And however it hath been cited and was cited in that great Judgement given upon the habeas Corpus in the King's Bench as if it had been that upon such commitments the Judges might not baile the prisoners yet it is most plain that in the resolution it self no such thing is contained but rather expresly the contrary I shall better represent it to your Lordships by reading it then by opening it Then it was read If this Resolution doth resolve any thing it doth indeed upon the matter resolve fully the
have done Commune periculum commune requirit Auxilium and thereupon take such further course as may secure your Lordships and us and all your and our posterities in enjoying of our ancient undoubted and fundamentall Liberties The Argument of Sergeant Bramston upon the Habeas corpus MAy it please your Lordship to hear the return read or shall I open it Chief Iustice Hide Let it be read M r. 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 Iohn 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 his 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 shewen 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 onely 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 onely 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 de cantione admittenda but they lie in other cases but the writ of Habeas corpus is the onely 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 farre from appearing particularly by it that their is no cause at all expressed in it This writ requires that the cause of the imprisonment should be returned 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 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 acordingly it was enacted 42 E. 3. c. 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 no 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 onely 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 he is to be enlarged This is the end of this writ and this cannot appear 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
subjects grievance by the late Imprisonment of their persons pag. 21 Sir Benjam Ruddier's speech pag. 27 Sir Robert Phillips's speech pag. 28 Sir Thomas Edmonds pag. 30 Sir Iohn Elliot ibid. Sir Hum May ibid. The Petition for the fast March 26. 1628. pag. 31 The Kings Propositions March 28. pag. 32 Three grand questions ibid. Sir Iohn Coke his speech at a Conference between the Lords and Commons about the Petition to the King against Recusants pag. 33 The Petition of both Houses to his Majesty concerning Recusants March 31. pag. 34 The Kings Answer to the Petition against Recusants pag. 37 The Answer to the same Petition by the Lord Keeper Coventry pag. 38 Sir Edward Cokes speech March 25. upon a Question of law in point of Judgement given in the Kings Bench Mich. 3. Caroli viz. that a Prisoner detain'd by Commitment per special Mandat Regis without expressing a Cause is not Bailable wherein he held negatively pag. 39 The substance of the Kings speech upon the relating of the proceedings of the Parliament to him by the Counsellers of the Commons house of Parliament April 4. pag. 41 The Duke of Buckinghams speech to his Majesty the 4 of April ibid. S r Iohn Elliot in Answer to M r Secretary Coke's message of thanks from the King and the Duke of Buckingham delivered in the Commons house of Parliament April 5 pag. 43 A message by Secretary Coke from the King to the lower house April the 7 pag. 44 S r Benjamin Ruddier's speech upon the Receit of his Majesties Answer to the petition against Recusants pag. 45 The Kings message to the House of Commons by M r Speaker April 12. pag. 46. The petition concerning billetting of souldiers April 14. pag. 47 Nine heads of the House of Commons to the Speaker pag. 49 The Speaker S r Iohn Finches speech upon the nine heads pag. 50 The Kings Answer to the petition concerning billetting of souldiers pag. 53 S r Dudley Diggs his Introduction pag. 54 The Argument made by M r Littleton at the Command of the House of Commons out of Acts of Parliament and Authorities of Law expounding the same at the first Conference with the Lords touching the person of every Freeman pag. 56 The Objections of the Kings Councell with the Answers made thereto at the two Conferences touching the same matter pag. 65 The true Copies of the Records not printed which were used on either side of that part of the debate pag. 70 The Argument which by Command of the House of Commons was made at their first Conference with the Lords touching the liberty of the person of every Freeman out of presidents of Record and resolutions of Judges in former times by M r Selden pag. 76 The whole copies of the presidents of Record mentioned in one of the Arguments made at the first conference with the Lords touching the liberty of the person of every Free-man pag. 92 S r Edward Coke pag. 107 The Arguments of Serjeant Bramston on the Habeas Corpus pag. 111 The Argument of M r Noye upon the Habeas Corpus pag. 117 The Argument of M r Selden upon the Habeas Corpus pag. 122 The Argument of M r Calthrop upon the Habeas Corpus pag. 125 The substance of the Objections made by M r Attorney generall before a Committee of both Houses to the Argument that was made by the House of Commons at the first Conference with the Lords out of presidents of Record and resolutions of Judges in former times touching the liberty of the person of every Free-man and the Answer and replies presently then made by the House of Commons to these Objections pag. 121 The proceedings against the Earl of Suffolk April 14. p. 135 Severall speeches made at the Debates concerning the Kings propositions pag. 138 M r Alford ibid. S r Robert Maunsell ibid. S r Francis Seymour ibid. S r Peter Hayman ibid. M r Pimme ibid. Secretary Coke ibid. S r Dudley Diggs pag. 139 M r Spencer ibid. M r Iohn Elliot ibid. S r Edward Coke ibid. S r Thomas Wentworth pag. 146 S r Henry Martin ibid. M r Kirton ibid. S r Robert Phillips ibid. Serjeant Hoskins ibid. Serjeant Ashleys Argument seconding M r Attorney in the behalf of his Majesty pag. 141 M r Noyes Argument April 16 pag. 144 M r Glanvills Argument pag. 145 The Answer of the Judges for matter of fact upon the Habeas Corpus April 21 pag. 146 Iudge Whitlock's speech pag. 147 Iudge Iones his speech pag. 148 Iudge Doderidges speech pag. 149 The Lord chief Iustice his speech ibid. The Earl of Warwick's speech April 21 pag. 150 The Arch Bishop of Canterburies speech at the Conference of both Houses April 25 pag. 153 The five propositions read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich April 25. 1628 ibid. S r Dudley Diggs his speech in behalf of the Commons pag. 154 S r Benjamin Ruddier's speech April 28 pag. 157 The Lord Keeper's speech April 28. pag. 157 The Bishop of Exceter's letter sent to the House of Commons April 28. pag. 158 M r Hackwell of Lincolnes Inne his speech in the lower House May 1 pag. 159 The objections against M r Hackwel's speech ibid. Secretary Coke's message May 1 pag. 161 Secretary Coke's speech concerning himself and the nature of his place under his Majesty pag. 162 Henry Tomson one of the Sheriffs and Robert Henisworth Alderman of the city of York their submission for their indirect choosing of S r Thomas Savil Knight pag. 163 Propositions drawn for the defence of this Kingdome and the annoyance of the enemies of the same by sea ibid. Iudge Andersons speech pag. 165 The Kings message May 2 by Secretary Coke pag. 167 M r Masons speech May 2 ibid. The Speakers speech to his Majesty in the banquetting house May 5 pag. 171 The Kings Answer to the House of Commons delivered by the Lord Keeper May 5 pag. 173 The Lord Cok's speech at the Conference in the painted Chamber presenting the petition of Right May 8 pag. 174 The petition of Right to the Kings most excellent Majesty pag. 175 S r Benjamin Ruddier's speech pag. 178 His Majesties letter to the Lords spirituall and temporall of the higher House of Parliament pag. 180 The Kings message by the Lord Keeper May 21 pag. 181 M r Masons speech concerning the addition propounded by the Lords to be added to the petition of Right pag. 182 The Reasons of the Commons House delivered by M r Glanvil why they cannot admit of the propositions tendred unto them by the Lords 186 S r Henry Martin's speech pag. 188 The Kings speech in the Higher House at the meeting of both Houses Iune 2. pag. 194 The Lord Keeper in explanation of the same pag. 195 The Kings Answer to the petition of Right Iune 2. by the Lord Keeper ibid. S r Iohn Elliot's speech Iune 3. ibid. A Report from the Committee for trade Iune 4. pag. 201 His Majesties message to the House of Commons by
called because the Authour lay in the Fleet when he made the book for he lib. 2. cap. 52. in his cap. of Turnes and the views of the Hundred Courts in the Countrie sets down the Articles of the Charges that are there to be enquired of amongst which one of them is de replegiabilibus injuste detentis or irreplegiabilibus dimissis which cannot be meant of not bailing by the Justices for what have the inferiour Courts in the Countrey to do with the Acts of the Justices And to make it more plain he setteth down in this Chapter that concernes Sheriffs only the very Statute of Westm. cap. 15. which he translates verbatim out of the French into the Latin save that he renders taken by the command of the Justices thus per Iudicium Iustitiariorum and his Preface to the Statute plainly sheweth that he understood it of replevine by Sheriffs for he saith Qui debent per plegios dimitti qui non declarat hoc Statutum and per plegios is before the Sheriff But for direct authoritie it is the opinion of Newton the Chief Justice in 22. H. 6.46 where his words are these It cannot be intended that the Sheriff did suffer him to go at large by mainprize for where one is taken by the writ of the King or the command of the King he is irreplevisable but in such case his friends may come to the Justices for him if he be arrested and purchase a supersedeas So he declares the very Question That the Sheriffs had no power but that the Justices had power to deliver him that is committed by the Kings Command And both the ancient and modern practise manifests as much for he that is taken for the death of a man or for the Forrest is not replevisable by the Sheriff yet they are ordinarily bailed by the Justices and were by the Kings writs directed to the Sheriffs in the times of E. 1. and E. 2. as appeares in the Close Rolls which could not be done if they were not bailable And it is every dayes experience that the Justices of the Kings Bench do baile for murther and for offences done in the Forrest which they could not do if the word irreplevisable in Westm. 1. were meant of the Justices as well as of the Sheriffs For the authorities which have been offered to prove the contrarie they are in number 3. The first is 21. E. 1. Rot. 2. which also is in the book of the Pleas in Parliament at the Tower fol. 44. It is not an Act of Parliament but a resolution in Parliament upon an action there brought which was usuall in those times and the Case is That Stephen Rubar the Sheriff of the Counties of Leicester and Warwick was questioned for that he had let at large by sureties one William the son of Walter le Parsons against the will and command of the King when as the King had committed him by Letters under his Privie Seal that he should do no favour to any man that was committed by the command of the Earle of Warwick as that man was Whereunto the Sheriff answered that he did it at the request of some of the Kings houshold upon their Letters and because the Sheriff did acknowledge the receipt of the Kings Letters thereupon he was committed to prison according to the forme of the Statute To this I answer that he was justly punished for that he is expresly bound by the Statute Westm. 1. which was agreed from the beginning But this is no proof that the Judges had not power to baile this man The next Argument is 33. H. 6. in the Court of Common Pleas fol. 28.29 where Robert Poinings Esq was brought unto the Barre upon a Capias and it was returned that he was committed per duos de Consilio I believe it is misprinted for Dnos de Consilio i. e. Dominos de Consilio which is stongest against that which I maintain pro diversis causis Regem tangentibus and he made an Attorney there in an accusation whence is inferred that the return was good and the partie could not be delivered To this the Answer is plain 1. No opinion is delivered in that book whether he were delivered or bailed or not 2. It appeares expresly that he was brought thither to be charged in an accusation of debt at another mans Suit and no desire of his own to be delivered or bailed and then if he were remanded it is no way materiall to the question in hand But that which is most relied upon is the opinion of Stamford in his book of the Pleas of the Crown lib. 2. ca. 18. fol. 72.73 in his cap. of Mainprize where he reciteth the Statute of Westm. 1. cap. 15. and then saith thus By this Statute it appeareth that in 4 cases at the Common Law a man was not replevisable to wit those that were taken for the death of a man by command of the King or of his Justices or for the Forrest Thus farre he is most right Then he goeth on and saith As to the Command of the King that is understood of the command of his own mouth or his Councell which is incorporated unto him and speake with his mouth or otherwise every writ of Capias to take a man which is the Kings command would be as much And as to the command of the Justices that is meant their absolute command for if it be their ordinarie commandment he is replevisable by the Sheriff if it be not in some of the Cases prohibited by the Statute The answer that I give unto this is That Stamford hath said nothing whether a man may be committed without cause by the Kings command or whether the Judges ought not to baile him in such case but only that such a one is not replevisable which is agreed for that belongs to the Sheriff And because no man should think he meant any such thing he concludes his whole sentence touching the command of the King and his Justices That one committed by the Justices ordinarie command is replevisable by the Sheriff So either he meant all by the Sheriff or at least it appeares not that he meant that a man committed by the King or the Privie Councell without cause is not bailable by the Justices and then he hath given no opinion in this case What he would have said if he had been asked the question cannot be known neither doth it appeare by any thing he hath said that he meant any such thing as would be inferred out of him And now my Lords I have performed the command of the Commons and as I conceive shall leave their declaration of personall Liberty on ancient and undoubted truth fortified with 7 Acts of Parliament and not opposed by any Statute or authoritie of Law whatsoever The Objections of the King's Councell with the Answers made thereunto at the two Conferences touching the same matter IT was agreed by Master Attorney generall that the seven Statutes urged by
of Justice And thereupon the Statutes cannot be intended to restrain all commitments unlesse a cause be expressed for that it would be very inconvenient and dangerous to the State to publish the cause at the very first Answer Hereupon it was replied by the House of Commons that all danger and inconvenience may be avoided by declaring a generall Cause as for treason suspicion of treason misprision of treason or fellony without specifying the particular which can give no greater light to a Confederate then will be conjectured by his very apprehension upon the imprisonment if nothing at all were expressed It was further alledged that there was a kind of contradiction in the position of the Commons when they say the partie committed without a cause shewed ought to be delivered or bailed Bailing being a kind of imprisonment Delivery a totall freeing To this it was answered that it hath alwayes been the discretion of the Judges to give so much respect to a Commitment by the Command of the King or the Privie Councell which are ever intended to be done on just weightie Causes that they will not presently set him free but baile him to answer what shall be objected against him on his Majesties behalf But if any other inferiour Officer commit a man without a cause shewed they do instantly deliver him as having no cause to expect their pleasure So the Delivery is applyed to an imprisonment by the command of some mean minister of Justice Bailing when it is done by the Command of the King or his Councell It was said by M r Attorney That Bailing was a grace and favour of a Court of Justice and that they may refuse to do it This was agreed to be true in divers cases as where the case doth appeare to be for fellony or other crimes expressed for that there is another way to discharge them in some convenient time by their triall yet in some of these cases the constant practise hath been anciently modernly to baile them But where no cause of the imprisonment is returned but the Command of the King there is no way to deliver such persons by triall or otherwise but that of the habeas Corpus and if they should be then remanded they may be perpetually imprisoned without any remedy at all and consequently a man that had committed no offence be in worse case then a great Offender for the latter should have an ordinarie triall to discharge him the other should never be delivered It was further said that though the Statute of Westm. 1. cap. 15. as a Statute by way of provision did extend only to the Sheriff yet the recitall of that Statute touching the 4 cases wherein a man was not replevisable at the Common Law namely those that were committed for the death of a man by the command of the King or the Justices or for the Forrest did declare that the Justices could not baile such a one and that Replevisable and Bailable were Synonyma and all one and that Stamford a Judge of great authority doth expound it accordingly and that neither the Statute nor he sayes replevisable by the Sheriff but generally without restraint and that if the Chief Justice commits a man he is not to be enlarged by another Court as appeareth in the Register To this it was answered First that the recitall and body of the Statute relates only to the Sheriff as appeareth by the very words Secondly that replevisable is not restrained to the Sheriffs for that the words import no more that a man committed by the Chief Justice is bailable by the Court of Kings Bench. Thirdly that Stamford meaneth all of the Sheriff or at least he hath not sufficiently expressed that he intended the Justices Fourthly It was denyed that Replevisable and Bailable were the same for they differ in respect of the place where they are used Baile being in the Kings Court of Record Replevisable before the Sheriff and they are of severall natures Replevisable being a letting at large upon Sureties Bailing being when one Traditur in ballium and the Baile are his Gaolers and may imprison him and shall suffer bodie for bodie which is not true of replevying by sureties And Baile differeth from Mainprize in this that Mainprize is an undertaking in a summe certain Bailing is to answer the condemnation in Civil causes and in Criminall body for body The reasons and authorities used in the first Conference were then renewed and no exception taken to any save in 22. H. 6. it doth not appear that the Command of the King was by his mouth which must be intended or by his Councell which is all one as is observed by Stamford for the words are these That a man is not replevisable by the Sheriff who is committed by the Writ or Commandment of the King 21. E. 1. rot 2. dorso was cited by the Kings Counsell But it was answered that it concerned the Sheriff of Leicester only and not the power of the Judges 33. H. 6. the Kings Attorney confesseth was nothing to the purpose and yet that Book hath been usually cited by those that maintain the contrary to the Declaration of the House of Commons And therefore such sudden opinion as hath been given thereupon is not to be regarded the foundation failing And where it was said that the French of 36. E 3. Rot. Parliament 9. which can receive no answer did not warrant what was inferred thence but that these words Sans disturbance mettre ou arrest faire et le contre par special commandment ou en autre maniere must be understood that the Statutes should be put in execution without putting disturbance or making arrest to the contrarie by speciall command or in other manner The Commons did utterly deny the interpretation given by the Kings Counsell and to justifie their own did appeal to all men that understood French and upon the 7 Statutes did conclude That their Declaration remained in undoubted truth not controlled by any thing said to the contrary The true Copies of the Records not printed which were used on either side of that part of the debate INter Recorda domini Regis Caroli in Thesauro Recepto Scacarii sui sub custodia domini Thesaurarii et Camerarii ibidem remanentia viz. placita coram ipso Domino Rege Concilio suo ad Parliament suum post Pascham apud London in Mâ—nerio Archipiscopi Ebor Anno Regni Domini Regis Edw. vicessimo primo inter alia sie continetur ut sequitur Rot. secundo in Dorso Vic. Leic. sci Stephanus Rubaz Vic. Leic. War coram ipso Domino Rege ejus concilio arianatus ad Levem positus de hoc quod cum Io. Botetourte Edel Hatche W. Hemelin nuper in ballium ipsius vicecom per Dominum Regem fuissent assignati and Goalas Domini Regis celiberandum eidem vic quendam W. de Petling per quendam Appellatorem ante adventum eorundam Justic. ibidem
is true he was so But the Return and this Commitment mentioned in it have no reference to any such offence nor hath the Bailment of him relation to any thing but to the absolute Commitment by the Privie Councell So that the answer to the like objection made against Overton's Case satisfies this also The sixth of these is of Q. Elizabeth's dayes It is Mich. 9. Eliz Rot. 35. the Case of Thomas Lawrence This Lawrence came in by habeas Corpus returned by the Sheriffs of London to be detained in prison per mandatum Concilii Dominae Reginae Qui committitur Marescallo c. super hoc traditur in ballium An Objection hath been invented against this also It hath been said that this man was pardoned and indeed it appeares so in the margent of the Roll where the word pardonatur is entred But cleerly his enlargement by Baile was upon the Bodie of the Return only unto which that Note of Pardon in the Margent of the Roll hath no relation at all And can any man think that a man pardoned for what offence soever it be might not as well be committed for some Arcanum or matter of State as one that is pardoned The seventh of these is in the same yeare and of Easter Terme following It is Pasche 9. Eliz. Rot. 68. Robert Constable's Case He was brought by habeas Corpus out of the Tower and in the Return it appeared he was committed per mandatum privati Concilii dict Dominae Regina Qui committitur Marr. postea isto codem Termino traditur in ballium The like Objection hath been made to this as to that before of Lawrence but the self same Answer cleerly satisfies for both of them The eighth is of the same Queens time in Pasche 20. Eliz. Rot. 72. Iohn Browning's Case This Browning came by habeas Corpus out of the Tower whether he had been committed was returned to have been committed per privatum Concilium Dominae Reginae Qui committitur Maresc Et postea isto codem Termino traditur in ballium To this it hath been said That it was done at the chief Justice Wraye's Chamber and not in Court and thus the authoritie of the President hath been lessened and sleighted If it had been at his Chamber it would have proved at least thus much That S r Christopher Wraye then chief Justice of the King's Bench being a grave learned and upright Judge knowing the Law to be so did baile this Browning and so enlarge him And even so farre were the President of value enough But it is plain that though the habeas Corpus were returnable indeed as it appeares in the Record it self at his Chamber in Serjeant's Inne yet he only committed him to the Kings Bench presently and referred the consideration of enlarging him to the Court who afterwards did it For the Record saith Et postea isto eodem Termino traditur in ballium which cannot be intended of an enlargement at the chief Justice his Chamber The ninth of this first kind is in Hill 40. Eliz. Rot. 62. Edward Harecourts Case He was imprisoned in the Gate-house and that per Dominos de privato Concilio Dominae Reginae pro certis causis eos moventibus et ei ignotis and upon his habeas Corpus was returned to be therefore only detained Qui committitur Marr. c. Et postea isto eodem Termino traditur in ballium To this never any colour of answer hath been yet offered The tenth is Catesbies Case in the Vacation after Hillary Terme 43. E. Rot. 37. Robert Catesby was committed to the Fleet per warrant diversorum prenobilium virorum de privato Concilio Dominae Reginae He was brought before Justice Fennor one of the Judges of the Kings Bench by habeas Corpus at Winchester House in Southwark commissus fuit Marr. per praefat Edw. Fennor statim traditur in ballium The eleventh is Richard Beckwith's Case which was in Hillary 12. of King Iames R. 153. He was returned upon his habeas Corpus to have been committed to the Gate-house by divers Lords of the Privy Councell Qui committitur Marr. postea isto Termino traditur in ballium To this it hath been said by some that Beckwith was bailed upon a Letter written by the Lords of the Councell to that purpose to the Judges But it appeares not that there was ever any letter written to them to that purpose which though it had been would have proved nothing against the authority of the Record For it was never before heard of that Judges were to be directed in point of Law by letters from the Lords of the Councell although it cannot be doubted but that by such letters sometimes they have been moved to baile men that would not or did not ask their enlargement without such letters as in some examples that I shall shew your Lordships among the Presidents of the second kind The twelfth and last of these is that of S r Thomas Mounson's It is Mich. 14. Iacobi Rot. 147. He was committed to the Tower per warrantum à diversis Dominis de privato Concilio Domini Regis Locum-tenenti directum and was returned by the Lieutenant to be therefore detained in prison Qui committitur Marr. super hoc traditur in ballium To this it hath been answered That every body knew by common fame that this Gentleman was committed for suspicion of the death of S r Thomas Overbury and that he was therefore bailable A most strange interpretation as if the Body of the Return and the Warrant of the Privie Councell should be understood and adjudged out of fame only Was there not as much a fame why the Gentlemen that were remanded in the late Judgement were committed and might not the self-same reason have served to enlarge them their offence if any were being I think much lesse then that for which this Gentleman was suspected And thus I have faithfully opened the number of twelve Presidents most expresse in the very point in question and cleered the Objections that have been made against them And of such Presidents of Record as are of the first kind or prove plainly the practise of former Ages and Judgements of the Court of the Kings Bench in the very point in behalf of the Subjects my Lords hitherto I come next those of the second kind or such as have been pretended to prove that persons so committed are not to be enlarged by the Judges upon the habeas Corpus but ought to remain in Prison still at the plâ—asure of the King or of the Privie Councell These are of two natures The first are those wherein some assent of the King or the Privie Councell appeares upon the enlargement of a Prisoner so committed as if that because their assent appeares therefore the enlargement could not have been without such assent The second of this kind are those which have been used as expresse Testimonies of the Judges denying
also to the Nobles and their honourable Progenies to the Bishops and Clergie and their successours to all persons of what condition or sex or age soever to all Judges Officers c. whose attendance are necessary c. without exception of any person Fifth generall reason The fifth is drawn from the indefinitnesse of time the pretended power being limited to no time may be perpetuall during life Sixth generall reason The sixth à damno dedecore from the losse and dishonour of the English Nation in 2 respects First for their valour and prowesse so famous through the whole world Secondly for their industry for who indeavours to apply himself in any profession either of warre liberall science or merchandise c. if he be but Tennant at will of his Liberty And no Tennant at will will support or improve any thing because he hath no certain estate And thus it should be both dedecus and damnum to the English Nation and it should be no honour to the King to be King of slaves Seventh generall reason The seventh is drawn ab utili inutili for that it appeareth by the statute of 36. E. 3. That the execution of the statute of Magna Charta 5. E. 3.25 E. 3. are adjudged in Parliament to be for the profit of the King and of his people Rot. Parl. 36. E. 3. num 9. 20. And therefore this pretended power being against the profit of the King and of his people can be no more part of this prerogative Eighth generall reason The eighth generall reason is drawn à tuto for it is safe for the King to expresse the cause of the commitment 1. E. 2. de frang prison stat unt pasche 18. E. 3. rot 33. coram Rege Bildestons case rot Parl. 28 H. 6. nu 16. Acts Apost cap. 25. v. the last and dangerous for him to omit it for if any be committed without expressing the cause though he escape albeit the truth be it were for treason or felony yet the escape is neither felony nor treason But if the cause be expressed to be for suspition of treason or felony then the escape albeit he be innocent is treason or felony Ninth generall reason The ninth generall reason is drawn from the authorities 16. H. 6. tit Monstrans defaits 182. by the whole Court the King in his presence cannot command one to be arrested but an action of false imprisonment lieth against him that arresteth 22. H. 6.46 Newton 1. H. 7.4 the opinion of Markham Chief Justice to E 4. and the reason because the party hath no remedy Fortescue cap. 18. proprio ore nullus Regum usus est c. to commit any man c. 4. Eliz. Plowd Com. 236. the common Common Law hath so admeasured the Kings prerogative as he cannot prejudice any man in his inheritance and the greatest inheritance a man hath is the Liberty of his person for all other are necessary to it Major haereditas venit unicuique nostrum à jure legibus quam à parentibus 25. E. 1. ca. 2. Confirm Cart. all judgements given against Magna Charta are void Objections Upon Conference with the Lords the objections were made by the Kings Attorney First object That these resolutions of the House were incompatible with a Monarchy that must govern by the state Bracton Answ. Whereunto it was answered that nihiltam proprium est imperii quam legibus vivere And again Attribuat Rex legi quodlex attribuat c. viz. dominationem imperium quia sine lege non potest esse Rex It can be no more prejudice to the King by reason of matter of state for if it be for suspition of treason misprision of treason or felony it may be by generall words expressed viz. pro suspitione proditionis 2 object To blind those that are committed one cause must be pretended and another intended especially when it toucheth matter of state Answ. Whereunto it was answered that all dissimulation especially in the course of Justice was to be avoided and soundnesse of truth to take place and therefore David that was both a King and a Prophet prayed to Almighty God against dissimulation in these words Lord send me a sound heart in thy statutes that I be not ashamed where sound in the originall signifieth upright without dissimulation and shame followeth dissimulation when the truth is known Third object If a Rebell be attainted in Ireland and his children for safety and for matter of state be kept in the Tower what shall be returned upon the Habeas Corpus Whereunto It was answered First that their imprisonment might be justified if they could not find good sureties for their good behaviour Secondly It was charity to find them meat drink and apparell that by the Attainder of their father had nothing Fourth object Though his Majesty expresseth no cause yet it must be intended that there was a just cause Answ. De non apparentibus de non existentibus eadem ratio Fifth object First The King in stead of gold or silver may make money currant of any base metall Secondly He may make warres at his pleasure Thirdly He may pardon whom he will Fourthly He may make denizens as many as he will and these were said to be greater priviledges then this in question Answ. To the first it is denyed that the King may make money currant of base metal but it ought to be gold or silver Secondly It was answered admitting the King might do it his losse and charge was more then of his Subjects both in the case of money and in the case of warre The pardon was private out of grace and no man had dammage or loss by it so of the making of denizens the King was only the looser viz. to have single custome where he had double Thirdly it was a non sequitur The King may do these things ergo he may imprison at will Your Lordships are advised by them that cannot be daunted by fear nor misled by affection reward or hope of preferment that is of the dead By ancient and many Acts of Parliament in the point besides Magna Charta which hath been 30 times confirmed and commanded to be put in execution wherein the Kings of England have thirty times given their Royall assent Secondly Judiciall Presidents per vividas rationes manifest and apparant reasons we in the house of Commons have upon great studie and serious consideration made a grand manifesto unanimously nullo contradicente concerning this great Liberty of the subject and have vindicated and recovered the body of this fundamentall Liberty both of your Lordships of our selves from shadowes which some time of the day are long sometimes short and sometimes long again and therefore no Judges are to be led by them Your Lordships are involved in the same danger and therefore ex congruo condigno we desire a conference to the end your Lordships might make the like declaration as we
he could produce none at all but he said he thought the Testimony of it was burnt among many other things of the Councel-table at the burning of the banquetting house To the 9. being Harecourts Case H. 40. Eliz. Rot. 62. the self same Objection was made by him but no warrant was shewed to maintain his Objection To the 10. which is Catesbyes Case in vacatione Hill 43. Eliz. he said that it was by direction of a privy Seal from the Queen and to that purpose he shewed the Seal of 43. Eliz. which is at large among the Transcripts of the Records concerning bails taken in Cases where the King or the Lords assented But it was replied that the privy seal made onely for some particular Gentlemen mentioned in it and for none other as indeed appears in it and then he said that it was likely that Catesby here had a privy seal in his behalf because those other had so which was all the force of his Objection To the 11. of these which is Beckwiths Case in Hill 12. Iacobi Rot. 153. he said that the Lords of the councel sent a letter to the Court of Kings-Bench to bail him And indeed he produced a letter which could not by any means be found when the Arguments were made at the first conference and this letter and a coppy of an obscure Report made by a young student which was brought to another purpose as is hereafter shewed were the onely things written of any kinde that Mr Attorney produced besides the particulars shewed by the house of Commons at the first conference To this it was replied that the letter was of no moment being onely a direction to the Chief Iustice and no Matter of record nor any way concerning the rest of the Iudges And besides either the Prisoner was bailable by the Law or not bailable if bailable by the Law then was he to be bailed without any such letter if not bailable by the Law then plainly the Judges could not have bailed him upon the letter without breach of their oath which is that they are to do Iustice according to the Law without having respect to any command whatsoever so that letter in this Case or the like in any other Case is for point of Law to no purpose nor hath any weight at all by way of Objection against what the Record and the Judgment of the Court shews us To the 12. and last of these which is Sir Thomas Monsons Case in the 14. Iacobi Rot. 147. the same Objection was said over by him which was mentioned and clearly answered in the Argument and that one ground which is infallible That the Iudgment upon a return is to be made onely out of what appears in the body of the return it self was again insisted upon in this Case as it was also in most of the rest And indeed that alone which is most clear Law fully satisfies almost all kinds of Objections that have been made to any of these presidents which thus rightly understood are many ample Testimonies of the Judgments of the Court of Kings-Bench touching this great point in the several ages and raignes of the several Princes under which they fell After his Objections to the 12. and the Replies and satisfactions given to those Objections he came next to those wherein the Assent of the King and privy Councel appears to have been upon the enlargment but he made not to any of those any other kinde of Objections then such as are mentioned and clearly answered as they were now again in the Argument made at the first conference And for so much as concerns Letters of assent or direction the same was here said again by way of Reply to him as is before said touching the letter in Beckwithes case After these were dispatched he came to urge the eight Presidents which seemed to make for the other side against the resolution of the House of Commons which eight were used and Coppies of them also were given in to the Lords at the first conference Of these eight the first 4. were urged by him as being of one kinde the difference of them onely being such that save onely in the names of Prisons and of Persons they are but the self same The force of these four he objected thus that Richard Everard for the purpose in the first of them which is 5. H. 7. Rot. 18. Roger Cherry in the second of them which is 8. H. 7. Rot. 12. Christofer Burton in the third of them which is 9. H. 7. Rot. 14. and George Urswick in the fourth of them which is 19. H. 7. Rot. 33. were returned into the Kings-bench upon several Writs of Habeas corpus to have been committed and detained in the several Prisons whence they came per mandatum Domini Regis that upon that return they were committed to the Marshall of the Kings-bench and that however it had been objected against those Presidents that this kinde of commitment was by the course of that Court alwayes done before the bayling of the Prisoner Yet that it did not appear that they were bayled The Reply to this Objection was That by constant course of Kings-bench whosoever came in upon Habeas Corpus or otherwise upon any Writ in that Court cannot be bayled untill he be first committed to the Marshall of that Court and that thence it was that all those 4. were committed to the Marshall as appears by the entry Qui committitur Mareschallo c. which is the usual entry in such a case and that the Clerks of that Court acknowledge this course and entry to be most constant So that all the inference that can be made out of these four is but that four Prisoners being brought from several Prisons by Habeas Corpus into the King-bench and return'd to stand committed per mandatum Domini Regis were so far from being remaunded by the Law that in all these four cases they were partly first taken from the several Prisons wherein they had been detained by such a general command which could not have been if they had not been adjudged in every one of the cases to have been baylable by the Court and that this commitment of them to the Marshall of the Kings-bench was the first step towards the bayling of them as in all other cases But that it appears not that either they ever demaunded to be bayled or that they were able to finde sufficient bayl And if they did not the one or could not do the other it may follow indeed that they were not bayled But this commitment to the Kings-bench being the first step to the bayling of them as by the constant course it is shews most plainly that they were baylable by the Law which is the onely thing in question So that although these 4. Presidents were rancked among them that may seem to make against the resolution of the House of Commons which was done both because they have this small colour in them
predictae doth not always imply or remaunding upon judgment or debate And this answer was given to this of Cesars Case that is the sixt of this Number The seventh is the Case of Iames Demetrius It was 12 Iacobi Rot. 153. Mr Attorney objected that this Demetrius and divers others being Brewers were committed per consilium Domini Regis to the Marshal-sea of the houshould and that upon the commitment so generally returned they were remaunded and that the Entry was immediate remittitur prefato Marescallo hospitii predicti where he observed that immediate shews that the Judges of that time were so resolved of this Question that they remaunded them partly as men that well knew what the Law was herein Here unto the Gentlemen of the House of Commons gave these answers First that the Remittitur in this Case is but as the other in Cesars and so proves nothing against them Secondly that immediate being added to it shews plainly that it was done without debate or any argument or consideration had of it which makes the authority of the presidents to be of no force in point of Law for Judgments and Awards given upon delibration onely and debate are Proofs and Arguments of weight and not any sudden Act of the Court without debate or deliberation And the Entry of immediate being proposed to Mr. Keeling it was confirmed by him that by that Entry it appears by this course that the remaunding of him was the self same day he was brought which as it was said by the Gentlemen of the House of Commons might be at the riseing of the Court or upon advisement and the like And this answer was given to this president of the Brewers The last of the 8. which Mr. Attorney objected is Saltonstals Case in the 13. Iacobi Regis He was committed per mandatum Dominorum Regis de privato Consilio and being returned by the Warden of the Fleet to be so remittitur prisonae predictae and in the 13. Iac in the same year remittitur generally in the Roll and these two make but one Case and are as one president To this the Gentlemen of the House of Commons answered that it is true the Rolls have such Entries of remittitur in them generally but that proves nothing upon the reason before used by them in Cesars Case But also Saltonstall was committed for another cause besides per mandatum Dominorum Consilii for a contempt against an order in Chauncery and that was in the return also And besides the Court as it appears in the Record gave several days to the Warden of the Fleet to mend his return which they would not have done if they had conceived it sufficient because that which is sufficient needs no amendment To this M r. Attorney replyed that they gave him a day to amend his return in respect of that part thereof that concerned the order in Chancery and not in respect of that which was per mandat Concilij But the gentlemen of the house of Commons answered That it appears not any where nor indeed is it likely at all nor can be so reasonably understood because if the other return per mandatum Concilij had been sufficient by it self it appears fully that the Court conceived the return to be insufficient And so the gentlemen of the Commons house concluded that they had a great number of presidents besides the Acts of Parliament and reasons of Common Law agreeable to their resolution and that there was not one president at all that made against them but indeed that almost all that were brought as well against them as for them if rightly understood made fully to the maintenance of their resolution and that there was not one example or president of a Remittitur in any kinde upon this point before that of Cesars Case which is before cleared with the rest and is but of late time and of no moment against the resolution of the house of Commons And thus for so much as concerned the presidents of Record the first day of the conference desired by the Lords ended The next day they desired another conference which the house of Commons at which it pleased the Committee of both houses to hear M r Attorney again to make what Objection he would against other parts of the Arguments formerly delivered by the house of Commons He then Objected against the Acts of Parliament and against the reasons of Law and his Objections to these parts were answered as appears in the answers by order given into the house of Commons by the gentlemen that made them He Objected also upon the second day against that second kinde of presidents which are resolutions of Judges in former times and not of Records and brought also some other Testimonies of opinions of Judges in former times touching this point First for that resolution of all the Judges in England in 34. of Queen Eliz. mentioned and read in the Arguments made at the first conference he said That it was directly against the resolution of the House of Commons and observed the words of it to be in one place that Persons so committed by the King or the Councel may not be delivered by any of the Courts c. and in another that if the Cause were expressed either in generality or speciality it was sufficient and he said that the expressing of a cause in generality was to shew the Kings or Councels Command And to this purpose he read the whole words of that resolution of the Judges Then he Objected also that in a report of one Ruswells Case in the Kings-bench in the 13. Iac. he found that the opinion of some Judges of that Court S r. Edward Coke being then Chief Justice and one of them was that a Prisoner committed per mandatum Domini Regis or privati Consilii without cause shewed and so returned could not be bayled because it might be matter of State or Arcanum Imperii for which he stood committed And to this also he added an opinion that he found in a Journal of the House of Commons of the 13. Iac. wherein S r. Edward Coke speaking to a Bill preferred for the explanation of Magna Charta touching imprisonment said in the House That a Prisoner so committed could not be enlarged by the Law because it might be Matter of State for which he was committed And among these Objections of other nature also he spake of the confidence that was shewed in behalf of the House of Commons he said that it was not confidence could add any thing to the determination of the question but if it could that he had as much reason for the other side against the resolution of the House grounding himself upon the force of his Objections which as he conceived had so weakned the Argument of the Commons House that notwithstanding any thing yet Objected they were upon clear reason confident of the truth of their first resolution grounded upon so just
examination and deliberation taken by them And it was observed to the Lords also that their confidence herein was of another nature and far greater weight then any confidence that could be expressed by M r. Attorney or whomsoever else being of his Majesties Councel learned To which purpose the Lords were desired to take into their Memory the difference between the present quality of the Gentlemen that spake in behalf of the House of Commons and of the Kings learned Councel in their speaking there howsoever accidentally they were both men of the same profession For the Kings Councel spake as Councel perpetually retained by Fee and if they made glosses and and what advantagious Interpretations soever for their own part they did but what belonged to their place and quality as M r. Attorney had done But the Gentlemen that spake in behalf of the House of Commons came there bound on the one side by the trust reposed in them by their Countrey that sent them and on the other bound also by an Oath taken by every of them before they sit in the House to maintain and defend the rights and prerogatives of the Crown So that even in the point of confidence alone that of them that spake as retained Councel by perpetual Fee and might by their place being permitted to speak say what they would and that of them that spake as bound to nothing but truth but by such a trust and such an Oath were no way to be so compared or Counterpoised as if the one of them were of no more weight then the other And then the Objections before mentioned were also answered For that of the resolution of all the Judges of England in 34. Eliz. It was shewed plainly it agreed with the resolution of the House of Commons For although indeed it might have been expressed with more perspicuity yet the words of it as they are sufficiently shew that the meaning of it is no otherwise To that purpose besides the words of the whole frame of this resolution of the Judges as it is in the Coppy transcribed out of the Lord Chief Justice Andersons book written in his own hand which book was there offered to be shewed also in behalf of the House of Commons It was observed that the Records of the first part of it shew plainly that all the Judges of England then resolved that the Prisoners spoken of in the first part of their resolution were onely Prisoners committed with cause shewed for they onely said they might not be delivered by any of the Courts without due Trial by Law and Judgement of acquital had which shews plainly that they meant that by trial and acquital they might be delivered but it is clear that no trial or acquital can be had where is not some cause laid to their charge for which they ought to stand committed Therefore in that part of the resolution such Prisoners are onely meant as are committed without cause shewed which also the Judges in that resolution expresly thought necessary as appears in the second part of the resolution wherein they have these words If upon Return of the Habeas Corpus the cause of their commitment be certified to the Judges as it ought to be c. by which words they shew plainly that every return of a commitment is insufficient that hath not a cause shewed of it And to that which M r. Attorney said as if the cause were sufficiently expressed in generality if the Kings Command or the Councels were expressed in it and as if that were meant in the resolution for a sufficient general cause it was answered That it was never heard of in Law that the power or Person that committed the Prisoner was understood for the Causa captionis or Causa detentionis but onely the reason why that Power or Person committed the Prisoner as also in common speech if a man ask why and for what cause a man stands committed the answer is not that such a one committed him but his offence or some other cause is understood in the question and is to be shewed in the Answer But to say that such an one committed the Prisoner is an answer to the question who committed him and not why or for what cause he stands committed Then for that of the Coppy of the Report of 13. Iac. shewed forth by Mr. Attorney it was answered That the Report it self which had been before seen and perused among many other things at a Committee made by the House was of sleight or no Authority for that it was taken by one that was at that time a young Student onely and was a Reporter in the Kings-bench and there was not any other Report to be found that agreed with it Secondly although the Reports of young Students when they take the words of Judges as they fall from their mouth at the Bench and in the Person and form as they are spoken may be of good credit Yet in this Case there was not one word so reported but in truth there being three Cases a time in the Kings-bench one Ruswell and one Allen and one Saltonstall every of which had something of like nature in it the Student having been present in the Court made up the form of one Report or Case out of all those three in his own words and so put it into his book so that there is not a word in the Report but is framed according to the Students fancie as it is written and nothing is expressed in it as it came from the mouth of the Judges otherwise then his fancie directed him Thirdly there are in the Report plain falshoods of Matter of Fact which are to be attributed either to the Judges or to the Reporter It is most likely by all reason that they proceeded from the Reporters fault but however those Matters of falshood shew sufficiently that the credit of the rest is of slight value for the purpose It is said in the Report that Harecourt being committed by the Councel was bayled in 40. Eliz. upon a privy Seal or a Letter where as there was no such thing in truth And it is said there that no such kinde of Letters are filed there in any case whatsoever That resolution of the Judges in 34. is miscited there and in 36. of Queen Eliz. and it is said there that by that resolution a Prisoner returned to be committed by the command of the Councel might not at all be delivered by the Court whereas no such thing is comprehended in in that resolution But that which is of most moment is that howsoever the truth of the report were yet the opinion of the Judges being sudden without any debate had of the case is of sleight moment For in difficult points especially the gravest and most learned men living may on the sudden let fall and that without disparragement to them such opinions as they may well and ought to change upon further enquiry and examination and full debate had
before them and mature deliberation taken by them Now plainly in that case of the 13. Iacob there is not so much as pretence of any debate at Bar or Bench. All that is reported to have been is reported as spoken upon the sudden and can any man take such a sudden opinion to be of value against solemne debates and mature deliberation since had of the point and all circumstances belonging to it which have within this half year been so fully examined and searched into that it may well be affirm'd that the learned'st man whatsoever that hath now considered of it hath within that time or might have learned more reason of satisfaction in it then ever before he met with Therefore the sudden opinions of any Judge to the contrary is of no value here Which also is to be said of that opinion obviously delivered in the Commons House 18. Iac. as M r. Attorney objected out of the Journal book of the House But besides neither was the truth of that report of that opinion in the Journal any way acknowledged For it was said in behalf of the House of Commons that their Journals were for matter of order and resolutions of the House of such Authority as that they were as their Records but for any particular Mans opinion noted in any of them it was so far from being of any Authority with them that in truth no particular opinion is at all to be entered in them and that their Clerks offend when ever they do the contrary And to conclude no such opinion whatsoever can be sufficient to weaken the clear Law comprehended in these resolutions of the House of Commons grounded upon so many Acts of Parliament so much reason of Common Law and so many Presidents of Record and the resolution of all the Judges of England and against which no Law written not one President not one reason hath been brought that makes any thing to the contrary And thus to this purpose ended the next day of the Conference desired by the Lords and had by a Committee of both Houses The Proceedings against the Earle of SUFFOLK 14. April 1628. MR. Kerton acquainted the House how that the Earle of Suffolk had said to some Gentlemen that M r. Selden had razed a Record and deserved to be hanged for going about to set division betwixt the King and his Subjects And being demanded to whom the words were spoken he was unwilling to name any till by question it was resolved he should nominate him He then named S r. Iohn Strangwaies who was unwilling to speak what he had heard from the Earle but being commanded by the House and resolved by question he confessed That upon Saturday last he being in the Committee Chamber of the Lords the Earle of Suffolk called him unto him and said Sir Iohn will you not hang Selden To whom he said for what The Earle replied By God he hath razed a Record and deserves to be hanged This the House took as a great injury done to the whole House M r. Selden being imployed by them in the conference with the Lords in the great cause concerning the Liberty of the Persons of the Subjects The House presently sent S r. Robert Philips with a message to the Lords to this effect He expressed the great care the Commons had upon all occasions to maintain all mutual respect and correspondency betwixt both Houses Then he informed them of a great injury done by the Earle of Suffolk to the whole house and to M r. Selden a particuler Member thereof who by their Command had been imployed in the late conference with their Lordships That the House was very sensible thereof and according to former Presidents made them truly acquainted with it and demaunded Justice against the Earle of Suffolk he read the words saying they were spoken to Sir Iohn Strangwayes a Member of their House After a short stay the Lords called for the Messenger to whom the Lord Keeper gave this Answer He signified the great desire and care of their Lordships to maintain and increase the correspondencies betwixt both Houses and as a Testimony thereof they had partly taken into consideration the charge That the Earle of Suffolk being a Man of great place and Honour had voluntarily protested upon his Honour and Soul that there passed no such words as those from him to Sr. Iohn Strangwayes And the Lord Keeper wished that their Lordships speedy proceedings in this business might testifie their love and good will to the Commons House The next day being the 15. of April Sr. Iohn Strangwayes made a Protestation openly in the House wherein he avowed that notwithstanding the Earls denial he did speak those words positively unto him and would maintain it any way fitting a Member of that House or a Gentleman of Honour They ordered that this Protestation should be entered into the Journal book and that a Committee should take into consideration what was fit for the House to proceed to for the justification of S r. Iohn Strangwayes and what was fitting to be done in this Case and to examine Witness of the proof of the words Upon the 17. day S r. Iohn Elliot reported what the Committee had done That they had sent for and examined Sr. Christopher Nevill who related that upon Saturday being in the Lords Committee Chamber the Earle of Suffolk said thus to him Mr. Attorney hath cleared the business and hath made the cause plain on the Kings side and further said M r. Selden hath razed a Record and hath deserved to be hanged and the Lower House should do well to joyn with the Higher in a Petition to the King to hang him and added as a reason For Mr. Selden went about and took a course to divide the King from his people or words to that effect And being asked whether he conceived that those words of dividing the King from his people had relation to the whole and general action of M r. Selden before the Lords or to the particuler of razing a Record he conceived they were referred to the general action They had examined one M r. Littleton who confessed he heard the Earle of Suffolk speak to a Gentleman whom he knew not words to this affect viz. That he would not be in M r. Seldens Coat for 10000 l. and that M r. Selden deserved to be hanged The second part of this Report concerned the particuler of S r. Iohn Strangwayes wherein though the Committee found no Witness to prove the words spoken to S r. Iohn Srangwayes yet there were many circumstances which perswaded them of the truth thereof 1. That the same words in the same syllables were spoken to Sr. Christopher Nevill and that the Earle as he called to him S r. Iohn Strangwayes so he called to him Sr. Christopher Nevill 2. That the Earle of Suffolk called S r. Iohn Strangwayes to him and spake to him was proved by S r. George Fane and S r. Alexander S r. Iohn
is said that bayl is ex gratia he answers that if the Prisoner comes to Habeas Corpus then it is not ex gratia Yet the Court may advise but mark the words ad subjiciendum recipiendum prout Curia consideraverit now it is impossible the Judges should do so if no cause be expressed for it they know no cause he may bring the 1.2.3 and fourth Habeas Corpus and so infinite till he finde himself a perpetual Prisoner so that no cause expressed is worse for a man then the greatest cause or Villany that can be imagined and thus far proceeded that learned Gentlemen M r. GLANVILES Argument HE said that by favour of the House of Commons he had liberty to speak if opportunity were offered he applies his answer to one particuler of M r. Attorney who assigned to the King 4. great trusts 1. of War 2. Coins 3. Denizens 4. Pardons Is assented unto that the King is trusted with all these 4. legal Prerogatives but the Argument followeth not the King is trusted with many Prerogatives Ergo in this non sequitur non est sufficiens enumeratio partium he said he could answer these particulars with 2. rules whereof the first should wipe of the first and the second and the other the third and fourth The first rule is this there is no fear of trusting the King with any thing but the fear of ill Councel the King may easily there be trusted where ill Councel doth not ingage both the King and Subjects as it doth in matter of War and Coin If he miscarry in the Wars it is not alwayes pecuum Achiro but he smarts equally with the people If he abase his Coin he looseth more then any of his people Ergo he may safely be trusted with the flowers of the Crown War and Coin The second rule he began was this when the King is trusted to confer grace it is one thing but when he is trusted to infer an injury it is another matter The former power cannot by miscouncelling be brought to prejudice another The latter may if the King pardoneth a guilty Man he punisheth not a good subject if he denizen never so many strangers it is but damnum sine injuria we allow him a liberty to confer grace but not without cause to infer punishment and indeed he cannot do injury for if he command to do a Man wrong the command is void alter fit Author and the Actor becomes the wrong doer Therefore the King may be safely trusted with War Coin Denizens and Pardons but not with a power to imprison without expression of Cause or limmitation of time because as the Poet tells us Libertas potius auro The Answer of the Judges for matter of Fact upon the HABEAS CORPUS 21. April THe Chief Justice saith they are prepared to obey our Command but they desire to be advised by us whether they being sworn upon penalty of forfeiting Body Lands and Goods into the Kings hands to give an account to him may without Warrant do this The Duke said he had acquainted the King with the business and for ought he knoweth he is well content therewith But for better assurance he hath sent his brother of Anglesey to know his pleasure Devonshire saith if a complaint be made by a mean Man against the greatest Officer in this place he is to give an account of his doings to this House Bishop of Lincoln saith this motion proceeded from him and so took it for clear that there was an appeal from the Chancery to a higher Court then the Kings-bench and in that Court hath ever given an account of their doings The Lord Say saith he wondred there should be any question made of this business because in his opinion this being the highest Court did admit of no appeal The President said the Judges did not do this by way of appeal but as the most common way for them this being a matter concerning the Kings prerogative Lord Say saith if they will not declare themselves we must take into consideration the point of our priviledge The Duke saith this was not done by the Judges as fearing to answer but of respect to the King And now his brother was come with answer from the King that they might proceed Order was taken that this passage should not be entered into the Journal Book and so Judge WHITLOCK spake MY Lords we are by your appointment here ready to clear any aspersion of the House of Commons in their late presentment upon the Kings-bench that the Subject was wounded in this Judgement there lately given If such a thing were my Lords your Lordships not they have the power to question and Judge the same But my Lords I say there was no Judgement given whereby either the prerogative might be inlarged or the eight of the subject trenched upon It is true my Lords in Michaelmas Term last fower Gentlemen petitioned for a Habeas Corpus which they obtained and Councel was assigned unto them the return was per spialem mandatum Domini Regis which likewise was made known unto us under the hands of eighteen privy Councellours Now my Lords if we had delivered them presently upon this it must have been because the King did not shew cause wherein we should have judged the King had done wrong and this is beyond our knowledge for he might have committed them for other matters then we could have imagined But they might say thus they might have been kept in Prison all their dayes I answer no but we did remit them that we might better advise of the matter and they the next day might have had a new Writ if they had pleased but they say we ought not to have denied bayl I answer if we had done so it must needs have reflected upon the King that he had unjustly imprisoned them and it appears in Dyer 2. Eliz. that divers Gentlemen being committed and requireing Habeas Corpus some were bayled others remitted whereby it appears much is left to the discretion of the Judges For that which troubleth so much remittitur quousque this my Lords was onely as I said before to take time what to do and whereas they will have a difference betwixt remittitur and remittitur quousque my Lords I confess I can finde none but these are new inventions to trouble old Records And herein my Lords we have dealt with knowledge and understanding for had we given a Judgement the party must thereupon have rested every Judgement must come to an issue in matter in fact or demur in point of Law here is neither therefore no Judgement For endeavouring to have a Judgement entered it is true Mr. Attorney pressed the same for his Masters service but we being sworn to do right betwixt the King and his subjects commanded the Clark to make no entry but according to the old form and the rule was given by the Chief Justice alone I have spent my time in this Court and I
speak confidently I did never see nor know by any Record that upon such a Retorn as this a man was bayled the King not first consulted with in such a Case as this The Commons House do not know what Letters and Commands we receive for these remain in our Court and were not viewed by them for the rest of the Matters presented by the House of Commons they were not in agitation before us whether the King may commit and how long he may detain a man committed therefore having answered so much as concerneth us I desire your Lordships good constructions of what hath been said Iudge IONES SAid he was here to deliver before us what judgement was given before them concerning the Habeas Corpus he answered no Judgement was given and the Matter of Fact was such as my brother delivered unto you yesterday These 4. Gentlemen were committed to the Fleet-Gate-House and Marshall of the Kings House-hold 4. Returns were made upon the Writs and every one of them had a Councellour appointed who had Coppies of the Returns A rule was granted their Councel heard and exception taken to the Return because it did not shew cause of their caption These were of no force in the opinion of the Judges the next exception was because no cause of their commitment was shewed which the Judges held to be all one in point of Law Then my Lords they alleadged many Presidents and Statutes of themselves which the Kings Attorney answered That Persons committed by the King or Councel were never bayled but his pleasure was first known We agreed at the Chamber of the Chief Justice that all the Statutes alleadged are in force but whether we should bayl them or no was the question therefore we remitted them quousque After which Mr. Attorney required a Judgement might be entered I commanded the Clark he should not suffer any such thing to be done because we would be better advised But some will say our Act is otherwise I answered no for we have done no more then we do upon ordinary Writ when we purpose to be better advised and that was onely an Interlocutorie order But my Lords put the case a Habeas Corpus should be granted for one that is committed by the House of Commons would they thinck you take it well he should be bayled at his first coming to the Court I thinck they would not and I thinck the King would have done so in this case now my Lords there is a Petition of Right and a Petition of Grace to be bayled is a matter of Grace therefore if a man be brought upon an Habeas Corpus and not bayled he cannot say the Court hath done him any wrong I have now served seven years Judge in this Court and my conscience beareth me witness that I have not wronged the same I have been thought sometimes too forward for the Liberty of the Subject I am my self Liber homo my Ancestors gave their voice with Magna Charta I enjoy that House still which they did I do not now mean to draw down Gods wrath upon my posterity and therefore I will neither advance the Kings prerogative nor lessen the Liberty of the Subject to the danger of either King or People this is my profession before God and your Lordships Iudge DODDERIDGE SAith it is no more fit for a Judge to decline to give an account of his doings then for a Christian of his Faith God knoweth I have endeavoured alwayes to keep a good conscience for a troubled one who can bear the Kingdom holds of none but God and Judgements do not pass privately in Chambers but publick in Court where every one may hear which causeth Judgement to be given with maturity Your Lordships have heard the particulers delivered by my brethren how that Councel being assigned to those 4. Gentlemen in the latter end of Michaelmass Term their Cause received hearing and upon consideration of the Statutes and Records we found some of them to be according to the good old Law of Magna Charta but we thought that they did not come so close to this Case as that bayl should be thereupon presently granted My Lords the Habeas Corpus consisteth of 3. parts the Writ the Return upon the Writ or schedule and the Entry or rule reciting the Habeas Corpus and the Return together with the opinion of the Court either a remittitur or traditur in ballium In this Case a remittitur was granted which we did that we might take better advisement upon the Case and upon the remittitur my Lords they might have had a new Writ the next day and I wish they had because it may be they had seen more and we had been eased of a great labour And my Lords when the Attorney upon the remittitur pressed an Entry we all straitly charged the Clark that he should make no other Entry then such as our Predecessors had usually made in like Cases for the difference my Lords betwixt remittitur and remittitur quousque I could never yet finde any I have now sat in this Court 15. years and I should know something surely if I had gone in a Mill so long dust would cleave to my cloaths I am old and have one foot in the grave therefore I will look to the better part as near as I can But omnia habere in memoria in nullo errare divinum potiùs est quam humanum THE LORD CHIEF IUSTICE SAith he shall not speak with confidence unless he might stand right in the opinion of the House and protested what he spake the day before was not said by him with any purpose to trench upon the Priviledges of this House but out of that respect which by his place he thought he owed to the King he said concerning the point he was to speak of that he would not trouble the Lords with things formerly repeated wherein he concurred with his brethren He said if it were true the King might not commit they had done wrong in not partly delivering for my Lords saith he these Statutes and good Laws being all in force we meant not to trench upon any of them most of them being Commentaries upon Magna Charta but I know not any Statute that goeth so far that the King may not commit Therefore justly we think we delivered the interpretation thereof to that purpose for my Lords Lex terrae is not to be found in this Statute they gave me no example neither was there any Cause shewed in the Return A President my Lords that hath run in a storm doth not much direct us in point of Law and Records are the best Testimonies These Presidents they brought being read we shewed them wherein they were mistaken if we have erred erramus cum Patribus and they can shew no President but that our Predecessors have done as we have done sometimes bayling sometimes remitting sometimes discharging Yet we do never bayl any committed by the King or his Councel
till his pleasure be first known Thus did the Lord Chief Justice Coke in Raynards Case They say this would have been done if the King had not written but why then was the Letter read and published and kept and why was the Town Clark sent carefully to enquire because the Letter so directed whether these men offered for bayl were subsedy men the Letter sheweth also that Beckwith was committed for suspition of being acquainted with the Gun-Pouder-Treason but no proof being produced the King left him to be bayled The Earle of WARVVICKS speech 21. April 1628. MY Lords I will observe something out of the Law wherein this liberty of the Subjects Person is founded and some things out of Presidents which have been alleadged For the Law of Magna Charta and the rest concerning these points they are acknowledged by all to be of force and that they were to secure the Subjects from wrongfnll imprisonment as well or rather more concerning the King then the Subject why then besides the grand Charter and those 6. other Acts of Parliament in the very point we know that Magna Charta hath been at least 30. times confirmed so that upon the matter we have 6. or 7. and thereby Acts of Parliament to confirm this liberty although it was made a matter of derision the other day in this House One is that of 36. E. 3. No. 9. and another in the same year No. 20. not printed but yet as good as those that are and that of 42. E. 3. cap. 3. so express in the point especially the Petition of the Commons that year which was read by M r. Littleton with the Kings answer so full and free from all exception to which I refer your Lordships that I know not have any thing in the World can be more plain and therefore if in Parliament ye should make any doubt of that which is so fully confirmed in Parliament and in case so clear go about by new glosses to alter the old and good Law we shall not onely forsake the steps of our Ancestors who in Cases of small importance would answer nolumus mutare leges Angliae but we shall yield up and betray our right in the greatest inheritance the Subjects of England hath and that is the Laws of England and truely I wonder how any man can admit of such a gloss upon the plain Text as should overthrow the force of the Law for whereas the Law of Magna Charta is that no Free-man shall be imprisoned but by lawfull judgement of his Peers or the Law of the Land the King hath power to commit without Cause which is a sence not onely expresly contrary to other Acts of Parliament and those especially formerly cited but against Common sence For Mr. Attorney confesseth this Law concerns the King why then where the Law saith the King shall not commit but by the Law of the Land the meaning must be as M r. Attorney would have it that the King must not commit but at his own pleasure and shall we think that our Ancestors were so foolish to hazard their Persons Estates and labour so much to get a Law and to have it 30. times confirmed that the King might not commit his Subjects but at his own pleasure and if he did commit any of his Subjects without a Cause shewen then he must lie during pleasure then which nothing can be imagined more ridiculous and contrary to true reason For the Presidents I observe that there hath been many shewen by which it appears to me evidently that such as have been committed by the Kings Councel they have been delivered upon Habeas Corpus and that constantly It is true that some Presidents were brought on the Kings part that when some of these persons desired to be delivered by Habeas Corpus the King or his Councel signified his Majesties pleasure that they should be delivered or the Kings Attorney hath come into the Court and related the Kings Command but this seems to make for the Subject For that being in his Majesties power to deliver them who by his special Command were imprisoned May not we well think that his Majesty would rather at that time have stayed their deliverance by Law then furthered it with his Letters and made the Prisoners rather beholding to him for his grace and mercy then to the Judges for Justice had not his Majesty known that at that time they ought to have been delivered by Law I think no man would imagine a wise King would have suffered his Grace and Prerogative if any such Prerogative were to be so continually questioned and his Majesty and his Councel so far from commanding the Judges not to proceed to deliver the Prisoner by them committed without Cause shewn as that on the other side which is all the force of these Presidents the King and the Councel signified to the Judges that they should proceed to deliver the parties certainly if the King had challenged any such Prerogative that a Person committed without any cause shewn ought not to be delivered by the Judges without his consent it would have appeared by one President or other amonst all that have been produced that his Majesty would have made some claim to such a Prerogative But it appears to the contrary that in many of these cases the King or his Councel did never interpose and where they did it was alwayes in affirmation and incouragement to that Court to proceed And besides the writing of Letters from his Majesty to the Judges to do Justice to his Majesties Subjects may with as good reason be interpreted that without those Letters they might not do Justice also the King signified his willingness that such such Persons which were committed by him should be delivered therefore they could not be delivered without it which is a strange reason So that findeing the Laws so full so many and so plain in the point and findeing that when ever any were committed without cause shewn brought their Habeas Corpus they were delivered and no Command ever given to the contrary or claim made on the Kings part to any such Prerogative I may safely conclude as the House of Commons have done and if any one President or two of late can be shewn that the Judges have not delivered the Prisoners so committed I think it is their fault and to be enquired of but contrary it seems to me to be an undoubted Liberty of the Subject that if he be committed without cause or without cause shewn yet he may have some speedy course to bring himself to Trial either to justifie his own innocencie or to receive punishment according to his fault for God forbid that an innocent man by the Laws of England should be put in worse case then the most grievous Malefactors are which must needs be if this should be that if a cause be shewed he may have his Trial but if none he must lie and pine in Prison during pleasure
That Mr. Attorney having made a rough Draught being often urged to expedition by the Bishop of Winchester he sent the same to the Bishop who inter-lined and corrected the same adding the names of Cosens Manwering and Sibthorp to the pardon That Mr. Attorney may be asked whether any of these Lords were made acquainted with the affidavit about Cosens A Messenger is sent to the Lord Keeper to know the reason wherefore he made stop of the Great Seal and by what solicitations he was prest thereunto Thursday 5. A Petition in complaint of an imposition upon Mault by the Citie of London was this day preferred to the House which is prefered to the Committee for Grievances Some differences being observed in the Articles as in the twentieth Article c. a Committee is to Compare the old and new Articles with the Records at Lambeth and consider how all those differences come in Mr. Long COmplaineth that a Prosecution hath been against him in the Star-chamber for sitting in this House the last Session he being High Sheriff of Wiltshire and chosen Burgess of Bath in Somersetshire The Preachers are to be chosen to morrow at the Committee for Religion Mr. Ogle IS called who averreth his Petition and will prove the same by witnesses It is Ordered that Cosens shall have intimation to attend to answer here if he will on Munday come fortnight to be sent for by a Serjeant at Arms and if he be not of the Convocation but if he be then to have notice by the Speakers letters and if thereupon he appear not then to proceed with him as is usuall in like Cases If Witnesses be sent for to this House in any Publick business they are to pay their own Charges Secretarie Gook SAith He hath very now received from a Noble person this Message from his Majestie That he hath appointed the eighteenth of this Moneth for the Fast for this place and the twentieth of the next Moneth for the whole kingdom Sir Robert Phillips MOveth in the behalf of the Lord Peircie that having a Cause in dispute in the Lords House and three Members of this House being of his Counsel desires they may have leave to plead his Cause Which being conceived to be a Cause that is not to receive any Judgement here it is granted Friday A Petition exhibited against one Wittington a Papist in Northumberland Ordered to be sent for by a Serjeant at Arms. Mr. Harris of St. Margarets Westminster Mr. Harris of Hanwell in Oxfordshire Mr. William Fitz-Ieofferies of Cornwall are chosen for three Preachers for the day of the Fast and for the precedence is referred to the Preachers themselves Mr. Shervill REported one Parson Scall procured the Pardon for Mountague one Bartholomew Baldwin solicited the Pardon for Manwering There is also another Pardon found to be granted to Manwering pardoning the Judgement late he had given by the High Court of Parliament and all sums due to the King thereby Sir Nathaniel Ritch THat we may do somewhat which may give content to those who sent us hither and make expedition to the business of his Majestie and the Common-wealth That therefore the business of Mr. Mountague may be expedited to the Lords that they may enter into these things as well as we The Councel of Mr. Iones the Printer are to be heard upon Munday next Sir O. Roberts REporteth from the Committee sent to Mr. Attorney that Mr. Attorney staid for the Affidavits taken by Sir Euball Thelwall That one Heath a Gentleman of Grays-Inne told Mr. Attorney that Cosens should say that the King was not supream of the Church and that he had no more to do with Religion than he that rubs his horse heels Mr. Attorney acquainted the King whereupon the King charged him to make a strict Inquisition herein but the King would not believe the same to be true Mr. Attorney sent for his Kinsman again and being examined he said so as affidavits were made thereon There was further certificate from the Dean and others at Durham so that the business was much lessened thereby but Mr. Attorney pressing the business further casually met with the Bishop of Winchester who said to Mr. Attorney that this business will come to nothing and King that made the affidavit was but a vain fellow The Affidavit of Thomas King was read which verifieth the same Mr. Selden made the rest of this Report and delivered the Warrant by which Mr. Attorney drew the Pardons for the Bishop of Winchester The effect was that what Mr. Mountague had done or writ was not out of any ill meaning such a Pardon should be drawn as Mr. Mountagues Councel should direct This Warrant was under the Lord Dorchester being the Lord Carleton Mr. Selden delivereth likewise the Copie of the Pardon interlined and razed by the Lord Bishop of Winchester Sir Iohn Elliot HEre is high Treason upon oath a Deposition upon oath an opposition is not in Law to be admitted for here is not onely an Admission but an Invitation of Certificates for defence and allowed to sway the case of so high a nature that therefore the parties that made the Affidavits and Mr. Attorney may be examined to make a better disquisition in this for I fear the intimation of the Bishop of Winchester swayed too far with Mr. Attorney Be matter true or false the neglect of the dutie of the Attorney is not to be excused I am much grieved to see his Majesties mercie run so readily to these kind of persons and his justice so readily upon others trifling occasions nay upon no occasions nay upon no occasion onely the misinformation of some Minister Mr. Attorney being by Writ to attend the Lords House cannot be injoyned to attend this House or to appear upon Warrant wherefore Mr. Littleton and Mr. Selden being of the same Inne of Court have undertaken to give notice to Mr. Attorney that there being as accusation here against him he may here answer and satisfie the House on Munday next Saturday A Bill against Spirituall Symonie and a Bill against buying or selling of places of Judicature Mr. Kirton moved That a time may be appointed to take into consideration the business of Tonnage and Poundage Sir Walter Earl secondeth his motion that all the world may know that we will give to God that which is Gods and to Cesar that which is Cesars and to our Countrey that which is theirs Sir Walter moveth That the Merchants may have their goods and that his Majestie may be moved therein It is Ordered That the House on Tuesday next in a Committee shall take into consideration the business of Tonnage Poundage and all things incident thereto Mr. Shervill is nominated to take the Chair of the Committee Sir Rober Phillips REported from the Committee for Course of Justice A Petition of Complaints was exhibited by Mr. Noell a Member of this House against Sir Ed. Moseley Attorney of the Dutchie Court and his man in point of injustice That
the Communion Tables stood as Tables in Ale-houses but he would have them to be set as High Altars Dr. Moor is to deliver these things in writing to Morrow morning At the Committee for Religion SIr William Bawstrod If we now speak not we may for ever hold our peace when besides the Queens Mass there are two other Masses dayly so that it is grown ordinarie with the out-facing Iesuits and common in discourse Will you go to Mass or have you been at Mass at Somerset-house there coming 500 at a time from Mass. Desires to know by what authoritie the Iesuits lately in Newgate were released Mr. Corington Doubts not but his Majesties intention was good in the Declaration lately published but I conceive it will be made use of onely to our disadvantage that therefore the Declaration made be taken into consideration Sir Richard Gravenor REports the proceedings of this House against Poperie the last Session and what fruits have been thereon Sir Rober Phillips If ever there were a necessitie of dealing plainly and freely this is the time There is an Admission of Priests and Iesuits as if it were in Spain or France this increase of Papists is by connivance of persons in Authoritie Nine hundred and fourtie persons in houses of Religion being English Irish and Scots in the Netherlands maintained by the Papists of England and of this I shall deliver the particulars that we may frame a Remonstrance to the King that unless there be some better performance of his Majesties late answers to so many Petitions our Religion will be past recoverie Mr. Corington That the Papists by Act of Parliament or Laws of State may be removed from their offices which we have just cause to suspect Mr. Selden moveth that these things may be debated in order and first for releasing the Iesuits that were arraigned at Newgate whereof one was condemned they were 10 in number which were Priests who had begun a Colledge here in London about Clarkenwell and these men could not attempt these acts of boldness but they must have great countenancers Secretarie Cook THat a Minister who is said to be himself having notice of these 10 and this Colledge intended to be kept at Clarkenwell That it is plain there was a place appointed for this Colledge and Orders and Relicts prepared This Minister made the King acquainted with it and I should not do my dutie if I should not declare how much his Majestie was affected with it His Majestie refers it to the special care of the Lords of the Councell who examining the same sent these ten persons to Newgate and gave order to Mr. Attorney to prosecute the Law against them That this Colledge was first at Edmonton removed from thence to Camerwell and thence to Clerkenwell Ordered That all the Knights and Burgesses of the House shall to Morrow morning declare their knowledge what Letters or other hinderances have been for the staying of proceedings against Recusants Mr. Long a Justice of Peace who is said to understand much in the business of the Colledge of Iesuits at Clarkenwell is sent for and examined saith by the appointment of Mr. Secretarie Cook he apprehended these persons and took their Examinations and saith further he heard they were delivered out of Newgate by order from Mr. Attorney That Mr. Middlemore or General Soliciter for the Papists hired this house for the Lord of Shrewsburie a Papist and that there are diverse books of account of payments and disbursments to the value of 300 pounds per Annum with diverse Recusants names who allowed towards the maitenance of this Colledge and these books and papers are in the hand of Mr. Secretary Cook Secretarie Cook saith he cannot so amply declare the truth of the proceedings herein untill he have leave from his Majestie One Cross a Pursevant is to be examined upon oath who declareth he could discover diverse stoppages of the execution of the Laws against Recusants Saturday 14. A Complaint against the Lord Lambert a Baron of Ireland and a Member of this House who being a Colonel of Souldiers in Midd. hath imposed Four pence upon every Souldier towards his Officers Charges and the Petitioner for refusing to pay was first set in the Stocks and after by the Lord Lambert committed to a Publick prison It is Ordered that the Lord Lambert shall be sent for to answer this Sir Iohn Epsley desireth leave to answer a Complaint that is in the Lords house of Parliament against him Mr Selden That the use was and citeth Presidents that no Commander could be called to the Lords House but it will trench much to the disadvantage of the Priviledge of this House and untill 18. Iac. there was never President to the contrarie That therefore this may be considered of by a select Committee Ordered that Sir Iohn Epsley shall not have leave Mr. Chancellor of the Dutchie stifly secondeth Mr. Seldens Motion Mr. Secretarie Cook I am as carefull to maintain a good correspondencie with the Lords as any man but connivances in this kind may overthrow the fundamental Rights and Liberties of this House Let it therefore seriously be considered of for this not onely concerneth the Right of this House but the Libertie of the Common-wealth Ordered a select Committee shall be appointed to consider this Mr. Chancellor of the Dutchie delivereth an answer in writing from the Lord Chancellor Trer. and Barons to the Message sent to them Mr. Kirton WE looked for Satisfaction but now you see a Justification of their actions I therefore desire now we may proceed to consider of their proceedings and whether ever the Court of Exchequer held this course before for staying of Replevies and whether these have been done by the Regal Prerogative of the King in his Court of Exchequer It is Ordered that a select Committee of Lawyers Chequer-men shall take this into consideration Mr. Selden We have delayed the proceeding with the Customers expecting some good success from the Chequer but finding it otherwise I desire the Customers may be called to the Barre on Munday next Which is Ordered At the Committee for Religion SIr Thomas Hobbie from the Committee reported for the examination of the Keeper and Clerk of Newgate concerning the Priests there being a Warrant under the Attorneys hand for the deliverie of the Persons a Warrant under the Lord Chief Justices hand according to a Letter which he received from the Lord of Dorset signifying that it was his Majesties pleasure that the Priest condemned should be reprived Another Warrant under the Attorneys hand that the Priests condemned should be reprived and also in the Kings name to release those other nine persons Sir Nathaniel Ritch I am confident the Grace of the King hath been abused in this that therefore the privie Counsellers of this House may know whether it were his Majesties direction It is moved that Mr. Secretarie Cook may first declare his knowledge in this One Cross gave intimation of these persons First
House saith he took Mr. Rolles goods by virtue of a Commission under the great Seal and other warrants remaining in the hands of Sir Iohn Elliot That he knew Mr. Rolles to be a Parliament man and Mr. Rolles demanded his Priviledge but he did understand his Priviledge to extend onely to his person not to his goods Mr. Dawes further saith he took those goods for such duties as were due in King Iames his time and that the King sent for him on Saturday last and commanded him to make no other answer Mr. Carmarthen another Customer called in saith he knew Mr. Rolles to be a Parliament man and that he told Mr. Rolles he did not find any Parliament man exempted in their Commission and if all the bodie of this House were in him he would not deliver the goods if he said he said he would not it was because he could not Mr. Wansforth That the delinquence of these men may be declined for the present and that we may first go to the King by way of Remonstrance considering the matter from whence this did arise If it were a single Priviledge it were easily determined Mr. Selden If there be any near the King that mispresents our actions let the curse light on them and not on us And believe it it is high time to right our selves and untill we vindicate our selves in this it will be in vain to sit here Sir Nathaniel Ritch moveth not to proceed in this untill it be by a select Committee considered in regard the King himself gave order to stay these goods though the goods of a Parliament man Sir Iohn Eliot The heart-bloud of the Libertie of the Common-wealth receiveth its life from the Priviledge of this House Resolved by question that this shall be presently taken into consideration And being conceived a business of great consequence It is Ordered That the House shall be dissolved into a Committee for the more freedome of debate Mr. Harbert in the Chair of that Committee Friday 20. A Petition of Complaint of a Conspiracie against a mans life by the Lord Deputie of Ireland and others to get the estate of the Petitioner to their own use Which is referred to the Committee for Justice Sir Iohn Worsnam another of the Customers called in saith he was commanded from the King that the goods were taken for duties and no more that he was sought to to Farm the Customs and told the King being sent for to him that he was not willing to deal therein untill the Parliament had granted the same Mr. Selden Conceiveth the case of these three Customers do differ in the degrees of their offences First for Sir Iohn Worsnam whatever he saith here he hath often confessed the goods were taken for Tonnage and Poundage so that as he broke the Priviledge in taking the goods so likewise his swearing one thing and the contrarie plainly appeareth upon proof and his own confession Mr. Dawes his cause differeth onely in this Sir Iohn Worsnam is a Patentee and Dawes onely a sharer Mr. Carmarthens cause differeth in saying if all the Parliament were in him he would not deliver his goods Ordered that Worsnams case shall be first decided And first the point is Whether by the Lease Sir Iohn Worsnam having seised the goods hath interest or no or whether he be onely an accounter to the King or not Mr. Glanvile Here is a sum of money advanced a Lease granted for certain years a certain Rent reserved and though there be a covenant to these men that if there be less it shall be abated yet that cannot take away their interest The substance of the offences made by the Customers in the Exchequer is that the goods of the Merchants seised by them and remaining in the Kings Store-house were seised onely for duties to the King mentioned in a Commission under the Kings signet and that themselves the Customers had no interest nor pretence of interest Saturday 21. A Petition by Mr. Thomas Symons in further complaint of the Customers and the Two shillings Six pence upon the Currants granted to the Lord Arrundell which is referred to the Committee for Merchants Sir Robert Pye saith The Lord of Arrundell hath delivered in his Pattent to the King two months since At the Committee for Merchants MAster Littleton argued whether a Member of the House hath his goods priviledged upon a Prorogation being seised for the King All Priviledge is allowed for the good of the Common-wealth and the Parliament Priviledge is above any other the Parliament onely can decide Priviledge of Parliament not any other Judge or Court whatsoever That a man may not distrain for rem in Parliament time but for all arrears after the Parliament he may distrain he is not to be imployed in any action personal nor his goods to be seised in the Exchequer A Record and Act of Parliament by Petition that because the servant of a Member of the Parliament is in the Kings Royal protection that it might be High Treason to kill a Parliament man and the King answered affirmatively which made it a Law And for the Judges to determin priviledge of Parliament were to supersede the Law and make it void For the Prorogation the Priviledge stands good untill the day of Prorogation notwithstanding a Proclamation of a new Prorogation That the King is never so high in point of State as in the Parliament Citeth the case of Sir Robert Howard in High Commission All Priviledges unless in Felonie Treason or breach of Peace Sir Robert Phillips Thus you see how fast the Prerogative of the King doth trench on the Libertie of the Subject and how hardly recovered Citeth many Presidents wherein the goods of a Member of the Parliament were Priviledged from seizure in the Exchequer In 19 Eliz. it was resolved in Parliament that 20 days before and 20 days after was the time of Priviledge Chancellor of the Dutchie That in this debate we may tie our selves to point of Law and Authoritie not to point of Reason And conceiveth that no Priviledge lieth against the King in point of his duties Sir Francis Seymour I desire it may first be debated Whether this case doth concern the King or no for I conceive these Customers have not made good that there was any right here is onely art used to entitle the King I conceive it a high offence for any man to lay the scandal upon the King for every project Mr. Glanveil Here is a cunning Project in the Exchequer to entitle the King a meer cunning Project and an offence of a high nature to shelter their projects under the Command of the Crown Secretarie Cook The point in question is not the right of the Subject but the right of Parliament Priviledge and that in the case of Mr. Rolles and this is onely now in question Sir Iohn Strangewaies I know no reason why we should draw a question upon our selves which we need not especially between the King and us