The most common translation of these words, at the present day, is as follows: "No freeman shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, _nor will we (the king) pass upon him, nor condemn him_, unless by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land." "_Nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus._" There has been much confusion and doubt as to the true meaning of the words, "_nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus_." The more common rendering has been, "_nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him_." But some have translated them to mean, "_nor will we pass upon him, nor commit him to prison_." Coke gives still a different rendering, to the effect that "No man shall be condemned at the king's suit, either before the king in his bench, nor before any other commissioner or judge whatsoever."[15] But all these translations are clearly erroneous. In the first place, "_nor will we pass upon him_,"--meaning thereby to decide upon his guilt or innocence _judicially_--is not a correct rendering of the words, "_nec super eum ibimus_." There is nothing whatever, in these latter words, that indicates _judicial_ action or opinion at all. The words, in their common signification, describe _physical_ action alone. And the true translation of them, as will hereafter be seen, is, _"nor will we proceed against him," executively_. In the second place, the rendering, "_nor will we condemn him_," bears little or no analogy to any common, or even uncommon, signification of the words "_nec super eum mittemus_." There is nothing in these latter words that indicates _judicial_ action or decision. Their common signification, like that of the words _nec super eum ibimus_, describes _physical_ action alone. "_Nor will we send upon (or against) him_," would be the most obvious translation, and, as we shall hereafter see, such is the true translation. But although these words describe _physical_ action, on the part of the king, as distinguished from judicial, they nevertheless do not mean, as one of the translations has it, "_nor will we commit him to prison_;" for that would be a mere repetition of what had been already declared by the words "_nec imprisonetur_." Besides, there is nothing about prisons in the words "_nec super eum mittemus_;" nothing about sending _him_ anywhere; but only about sending (something or somebody) _upon_ him, or _against_ him--that is, _executively_. Coke's rendering is, if possible, the most absurd and gratuitous of all. What is there in the words, "_nec super eum mittemus_" that can be made to mean "_nor shall he be condemned before any other commissioner or judge whatsoever_?" Clearly there is nothing. The whole rendering is a sheer fabrication. And the whole object of it is to give color for the exercise of a _judicial_ power, by the king, or his judges, which is nowhere given them.