1628.

2dly, Howfoever it be true, that in the latter An. 4. Charles I. Part of the Record it does appear, That Biddlefton had been committed for the Sufpicion of Treafon; yet, if the Times of the Proceedings, expreffed in the Record, were observed, it would be plain, That the Objection was of no Force: For this one Ground, both in this Cafe, and all the reft, is infallible, and never to be doubted of in the Law, That the Juftices of every Court adjudge of the Force or Strength of a Return out of the Body of itself only, and according as it therein appears to them.

Now in Eafter Term 18. Edward III. he was returned and brought before them as committed only by that Writ, wherein no Cause is expreffed; and the Lieutenant or the Conftable of the Tower of London, that brought him into the Court fays, That he had no other Warrant to detain him, Nifi Breve prædictum, wherein there was no Mention of any Cause; and the Court, thereupon, adjudged, that Breve prædi&tum, or, that fpecial Command, was not fufficient Caufe to detain him in Prifon: And, thereupon, he is, by Judgment of the Court in Eafter Term, let to Main-prize.

But that Part of the Record, wherein it appears that he had indeed been committed for Sufpicion of Treafon, is of Trinity Term following; when the King, after the letting to Main-prize, fent to the Judges that they should discharge his Main-prize, because no Man profecuted him. And at that Time it appears, but not before, that he had been in for Sufpicion of Treafon; fo that he was returned to ftand committed by the King's fpecial Command only; without Caufe fhewed in Eafter Term; and then, by Judgment of the Court, let to Mainprize; which, to the prefent Purpose, is but the fame with Bail, though otherwife it differ. And, in the Term following, upon another Occafion, the Court knew that he had been committed for Sufpicion of Treafon; which hath no Relation at

all

1628.

An. 4. Charles 1. all to the letting of him to Mainprize, nor to the Judgment of the Court, before given; when they did not, nor could not poffibly know any Caufe for which the King had committed him.

• And Mr Selden faid, in Behalf of the Houfe of Commons, That they had not, indeed, in their Argument, exprefsly ufed this latter Part of the Record of Biddleton's Cafe, because it being only of Trinity Term following, it could not concern the Reason of an Award given by the Court in Eafter Term next before. Yet, notwithstanding, that, they had moft faithfully, at the Time of their Argument, delivered in to the Lords a perfect Copy, at large, of the whole Record of this Cafe: As they had done alfo of all other Precedents whatfoever cited by them. And, as touching those three Kinds of Record, the Remembrance Roll, the Return and File of the Writs and the Scrute; Mr. Selden answered, that it was true that the Scrute and Return of this Cafe of Biddleston was not to be found; but that it did not leffen the Weight of the Precedent, because always in the Award or Judgment drawn up in the Remembrance Roll, the Caufe, whatsoever it be, when any is fhewed upon the Return, is always expreffed: As it appears clearly by the conftant Entries of the Court of King's Bench. So that if any Caufe had appeared to the Court, it must have appeared plainly in that Part of the Roll which belongs to Eafter Term; wherein the Judgment was given. But the Return of the Commitment, by the King's Command, without Cause shewed; and the Judgment of Court, that the Prifoner was to be let to Main. prize; appears therein only: Therefore, notwithstanding any Objection made by Mr. Attorney, Mr. Selden affirmed this Cafe to be a clear Proof, amongst many others, touching that Refolution of the House of Commons.'

To the second of these twelve, which was Parker's Cafe in 22. Henry VIII, Rot. 37. Mr. At

torney's

1628.

torney's Objections were two; First, That it An. 4. Charles I, is true, that he was returned to be committed per Mandatum Domini Regis; but that it appeared that this Command was certified to the Sheriffs of London by one Robert Pecks, Gent. And that_in_regard the Command came no otherwife, the Return was held infufficient: And therefore he was bailed. Secondly, That it appears alfo in the Record, that he was committed pro Sufpicione Feloniæ, ac per Mandatum Domini Regis; fo that in regard that, in the Expreffion of the Caufes of this Commitment, Sufpicion of Felony precedes the Command of the King: Therefore, it must be intended that the Court took the Caufe, why the King committed him, to be of lefs Moment than Felony; and therefore bailed him. For he objected, that even the House of Commons themselves, in fome Arguments ufed by them, touching the Interpretation of the Statute of Westminster the first, Chapter 15. about this Point, had confirmed that, in Enumeration of Particulars, those of greatest Nature were first mentioned; and it was fuppofed, that fuch as followed are, ufually, of lefs Nature of Moment.

Mr. Selden replied to the first Objection, That the Addition of the certifying the King's Command, by Robert Pecks, altered not the Cafe. First, Because the Sheriffs, in their Return, took Notice of the Command, as what they were affured of; and then, how foever it came to them, it was of equal Force, as if it had been mentioned without Reference. Secondly, That as divers Patents paffed the Great Seal by Writ of Privy Seal, and are fubfcribed per Breve de privato Sigillo, fo divers per ipfum Regem, and are fo fubfcribed: And often times, in the Roll of former Times, to the Words per ipfum Regem are added Nunciat A. B. So that the King's Command generally, and the King's Command, related or certified by fuch a Man to this Purpofe, is of like Nature. VOL. VIII. Thirdly,

B

1628.

An. 4. Charles I. Thirdly, In the late great Cafe of the Habeas Corpus, where the Return of the Commitment was per fpeciale Mandatum Domini Regis, mihi fignificatum per Dominos de privato Confilio; the Court of King's Bench did agree that it was the fame, and of like Force as if mihi fignificatum, &c. had not followed: And that those Words were void. According whereunto, here alfo per Mandatum Domini Regis nunciat. per Robertum Pecks, was to be taken as if nunciat. per Robert. Pecks had been wholly omitted, and void.

Likewife, and in Truth, in that late Cafe, this Cafe of Parker was cited both at the Bar and Bench: And at the Bench, it was interpreted by the Judges no otherwife than if it had been, only, per Mandatum Domini Regis in this Place of it.

'But the Objection made there was of another Kind; as now delivered in the firft Argument made out of the Precedents, in Behalf of the House of Commons. Then for the fecond, touching the Courfe of Enumeration of the Caufes in the Return; Mr. Selden faid, That, how foever, in fome Acts of Parliament; and, elfewhere, in the folemn Expreflions used in the Law, Things of greater Nature precede and the lefs follow; yet, in this Cafe, the contrary was moft plain: For, in the Return, it appears that there were three Caufes of detaining the Prifoner; Surety of the Peace; Suf picion of Felony; and the King's Command: And Surety of the Peace is first mentioned, which is plainly less than Felony. Therefore, it is as plain, (if any Force of Argument be here to be taken from this Enumeration,) that the contrary to that, which Mr. Attorney inferred, is to be concluded: That is, as Felony is a greater Cause than Surety of the Peace; fo the Matter, whereupon the King's Command was grounded, was greater than Felony: But, in Truth, this Kind of Argument holds neither Way here. And whatfoever the Caufe was, why the King committed him, it was impoffible for the Court to know; and it might also

1628.

have been of very high Moment, as Matter of State, An. 4. Charles I, and yet of far lefs Nature than Felony: All which fhews this Precedent hath it's full Force alfo, ac cording as it was first used, in Argument, by the House of Commons.

To the third of thefe, which is Brinites his Cafe in 35. Henry VIII. Rot. 33. the Objection by Mr. Attorney was, That there was a Caufe exprefled pro Sufpicione Felonia; and though pro alis Caufis illos moventibus were added in the Return, yet, becaufe, in the Courfe of Enumeration, the general Name of alia, coming after Particulars, includes Things of lefs Nature than the Particular doth: Therefore, in this Cafe, Sufpicion of Felony being the first; the other Cautes, afterwards generally men tioned, must be intended of a lefs Nature; for which the Prifoner was bailable; because he was bailable for the greater, which was Sufpicion of Felony."

Hereto Mr. Selden replied, That the Argument of Enumeration, in thefe Cafes, is of no Moment, as is next before fhew'd; and, that although it were of any Moment, yet the alia Caufa, tho' lefs than Felony, might be of very great Confequence in Matter of State; which is pretended, ufually, upon general Returns of Command, without Cause fhewed: And, it is most plain that the Court could not know the Reasons why the Prisoner here was committed; and yet they bailed him, without looking further after any unknown Thing, under that Title of Matters of State; which as well might have been in this Cafe as in any other whatfoever.'

The Objections made by Mr. Attorney against the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Precedents, alledged by the House of Commons in favour of their Refolutions, with Mr. Selden's Answers thereto, are omitted in the Journals.

To the Eighth, which is Browning's Cafe, in P. 20. Eliz. Rot. 72, it was faid by Mr. Attorney, • That

B 2