The sovereigns prerogative and the subjects priviledge discussed betwixt courtiers and patriots in Parliament, the third and fourth yeares of the reign of King Charles : together with the grand mysteries of state then in agitation.

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 con∣cerning 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. N ^o. 9. and another in the same year, N ^o. 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 Com∣mons

that year, which was read by M^r. Littleton with the Kings an∣swer so full, and free from all exception, to which I refer your Lord∣ships 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 deli∣vered by Habeas Corpus, the King, or his Councel signified his Maje∣sties 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 de∣liver 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 con∣trary that in many of these cases the King, or his Councel did never interpose, and where they did, it was alwayes in affirmation and in∣couragement 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 willing∣ness▪ 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 con∣trary, 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 ju∣stifie 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 du∣ring pleasure. Mr. Serjeant Ashley, the other day told your Lord∣ships of the Embleme of a King, but by his leave made wrong use of it. For a King bears in one hand the Globe, and in the other the golden Scepter the tipes of Soveraignty and mercie, but the Sword of Justice is ever carried before him by a Minister of Justice, which shews Subjects may have their remedies for unjustice done, and appeals done to higher powers, for the Laws of England are so favourable to their Princes, as they can do no unjustice.

Therefore I will conclude as all disputes I hold do, Magna est veri∣tas & praevalebit, so I make no doubt we living under so good a Prince as we do, when this is represented unto him, he will answer us Magna est Carta & praevalebit.