PERSONAL LIBERTY. 



439 



cited a previous case in which it had already been held that even 

 a chartered company which had undertaken to establish a some- 

 what similar privilege had gone beyond its powers. The record 

 of the previous case in part is cited in the following terms (The 

 Case of Monopolies, 11 Coke Rep., 86 a) : 



" And a case was adjudged in this court, inter Davenant and 

 Hurdis, Trin. 41, Eliz. Rot. 93, where the case was that the company 

 of Merchant Taylors in London having power by charter to make 

 ordinances for the better rule and government of the company, 

 so that they are consonant to law and reason, made an ordinance 

 that every brother of the same society who should put any cloth 

 to be dressed by any cloth worker not being a brother of the same 

 society, shall put one half of his cloths to some brother of the same 

 society . . . upon pain of forfeiting ten shillings . . . and it was 

 adjudged that the ordinance, although it had the countenance of 

 a charter, was against the common law, because it was against the 

 liberty of the subject ; for every subject by the law has freedom 

 and liberty to put his cloth to be dressed by what cloth worker he 

 pleases, and cannot be restrained to certain persons, for that would 

 in effect be a monopoly ; and therefore such ordinance, by color of 

 a charter or any grant by charter to such effect, would be void." 



Again, if any man or woman, or if any family, may choose at 

 this time to work machines in their own houses for a period of 

 time or for a number of hours in the day beyond what is permitted 

 by statute law to be done in the factory, and any one shall molest 

 them, the decision in which it was first held that " a man's house 

 is his castle " may be cited in defense of the personal liberty of 

 the owner and of his right to dispose of his time, of his looms 

 which may constitute his capital, and of his labor in such 

 manner as may serve his own purpose in the best way, according 

 to his own judgment. He may not be forbidden to do that kind 

 of work in his house which is forbidden when conducted in a 

 factory.* 



Passing on again by more than a century, we come to one of 

 the great landmarks in the establishment of the liberty of the 

 English-speaking people, noted in the history of jurisprudence — 

 the decision of Lord Camden forbidding action under general 

 warrants. (Entick vs. Carrington, 2 Wis. 275, 1765.) The Earl 

 of Halifax, principal Secretary of State, issued a warrant to ar- 

 rest John Entick " and him having found you are to seize and 

 apprehend and to bring together with his books and papers in 

 safe custody before me." Entick brought trespass against the 

 king's messengers for seizing his papers under this warrant. 



*A declaration that a man's bouse is hi3 castle, and that he may defend it against vio- 

 lence, is contained in Semayne's case, 5 Rep., 91 a (2d Jac. 1). 



