Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-09-24

y
MARI called To he thrune IN the yeaf loss, this.
together with III the other ancient rights AMI
berries OF the English people. was again Gun
hrmed to them by written instrument. which
called q new dynasty to the throne. denominated
the
BILL or RIGHTS.
This document was prepared by com mittee.
OF which Lord Somers, aiterward Lord Chancei
lo-, Chairman. The new Sovereign was
msde distinctly to understand that the Grown
was held by act OF Parliament and not by hide
feasible and divine right. and that he was called
70 the throne expressly 70 maintain those sncent
liberties of the ieople by violating which his pre-
decessors of the House of Stusrt had lost il.
have thus shown YOU. gentlemen, by these
copous references TO English history, that from
the mnst ancient ime the exemption of subject
of the Briti-h Crown from arbitrary ARE and
imprisonment has been regarded as a sacred and
never Ia be-surrendered right. IL was first dis
tnctly asserted in that most ancient relic Of the
documentary history of English liberty. NJ -gna
Chsrta, in l2l5-conhrmed sfterward in 1897.
guarded by the Statute of Treason in 1850. again
asserted in the Petition of Right in 1927. recog-
n'zei in the Massachusetts Body OF Liberties in
l64l: again protected in England by the hsbeas
corpus act of Charles the Second in 1879 and
confirmed again by the Bill of Rights in 1858. An
iect. and settling the succession of the Crown
1t must not he supposed. however. that this
sacred right remained during these successive pc
RODS uninfringed by despotic power. On the
contrary. il was nv reason of those nfringmenrs
that its reiteration and reassertion became
necessary.
The practice of issung Government warrants,
lone OF the remnants of jurisprudence which
favored prerogative at the expense of liberty"
was occasionally exercised until the reign OF
George the Third. when. Mr.. Hallam SAYS. lit
received its death blow from the boldness of
Wilkes and the wisdom OF Lord Camden"
In the fourth article If the amendments to the
Constitution Of the United States. you will re
member il Is provided that the right of the peo
pie TO he secure in their persons. houses. papers
ami effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures. shall not be violated and no warrant
shall issue hut upon prob ,ble cause, supporten by
oath or affirmation, aud particularly describing
the place to be searched and the person or things
10 he siezed
This provision was placed in our Constitution
in the YER 1855 need not remind YOU that
it was grossly violated in the seizure of Mr..
Valandgham and TIE breaking in of his house
| will direct vour attention to the case in
England in 1863, which suggested the insertion
of this important guarantee in our fundamental
law
On the 2ad Of April. 1863, there appeared in
England rhe 45lh number of a newspaper called
he North Briton IL contained an article that
regarded by the Ministry defhmatory and
hbelous upon the Government, equivalent pro-
badly to the encouragement of enistments. or
some other "disoysl practice'') and Lord Hall
fax, one of the Secretaries of State, arrogated TO
himself the right TO issue warrant directing
four messengers. taking with them a constable
10 search for the authors, printers and publishers
Of the obnoxious paper. 10 apprehend and seize
them together with their papers. and bring them
before him" Armed with this rowing commits
sion. these officers seemed to have been ~ indus
rious as modern Provost Marshals--lke them.
''llsening TO idle tales rumors and curious guess
es:" they arrested in three DAYS not less thin
forty nine persons on Suspicion From some Of
these. they ascertaned that John Wilkes.
member of Parliament was the author of the
obnoxious article; aud the messengers were di
rected TO arrest him. They did so. and took him
before Lori Halifax, after ransacking his drawers
and sezing his private papers He was commit
tel to prison. and atterward released on hnbeas
corpus. by reason Of his privilege as a member Of
the House of Commons
The question of the legality of the warrant now
came heiore the courts OF England, in writs
brought against The messengers concerned in the
arrest. nv those whom thew had arrested.
In the first trial Lord Chief Justice Pratt de.
cided that general warrant was illegal and
that the messengers were not indemnifed bv
statute Mr. Wilkes himself sued Mr. Wood,
one OF the Secretaries of State, and recovered
IS 0O0 damages against him
Lord Chief Justice Pratt thus spoke OF the
warrant:
1.-The defendant claimed right under prece
dent to force per sons houses, break open e>cre
torres, and seize their papers upon a general war
rant such a nowar ia frulv cd i'm a
Secretary of State: and he can delegate it to
another. it certainly may affect the person and
property of every man i'm this kingdom. and is
totally subversive Of the liberty of the subject
This. with other cases. afierward came before
the Court of Kings Bench, and Lord Mansfield
pronounced JUDGMENT against the legality of
such proceedings. which concurred in by the
o. her Judges Mr. Wilkes afterward .ued Lord
H,f.x for false imprisonment. and recovered
50 .0G0 drmage-l
IL i, this identical power of discretionary i'm
pri.onment thus pronounced against over md
over again in rhe struggles for constitutional lib
cry in Eugl,nl. that il claimed to day by the
Administration of Abraham Lincoln
1t was hut recently that Mr. Sew I'd made the
boast tn Lori LYONS the British Minister that
''he could touch bell at his right hand and or
der the arrest OF citizen OF Ohio; that he could
touch bell at his left and order the arrest of a
cltlZen OF New 1Ork. anu tnaL no power OH eaFtn,
save that OF the President, could release them.
Ny Lprd. can he Queen of England do as
muchg'
Well might the British Minister have replied
to this dsgraceful and Infamous boast No. sir,
the Queen of England is a con, titutinnal mon
arch. and assumes to exercise no authority not
conferred upon her by the English Constitution.
Sti less would she dare 10 arrogate TO herSel.
the power at discretionary imprisou meut-s
power only assumed by the most profigate and
despofic oi her predecessors. and incompatible
with The liberty OF an English subject IL was
tor the assumptions of powers akin IN THE that
Charles The FIRST lo>. hs head. and James the
Second ni- Crown No. sir. the Queen of Eng
land could not Ito a. much: for. As Lord Chat
ham has e'oqnently said. The poorest man in
hi- cottage deiy al the Dower- of lie British
Crown II may be frail. il, ruui may shake, the
, wind may blow through II. the storm NAV enter
it-but the KIM of ENGLAND cannot enter it he
cannot with AL his power cross the TIN eshold OF
that ruined tenement.
| have now shown you. nv fellow citizens, the
constitutional provisions under the hitherto sacred
guarantee OF which we have enjoyed our personal
freedom and the security Of our homes / have
traced Il history of those provisions through the
vciSsitudeS of the English monarchy fer period
OF six hundred ,enrs; | have shown YOU how
pertinaciously arbitrary power has sought to
srrogate itself this dangerous privilege OF dis
cretionary Imprisonment, and how il has been
courag eous resistance of interviewing people
1t WAS in the full light of these historical sirug
giles that the trainers OF our nuble Constitution
L. l.I.~ L