cited a previous case in which it had already been held that even a chartered company which had undertaken to establish a somewhat 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.[1]
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 arrest 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 house is his castle, and that he may defend it against violence, is contained in Semayne's case, 5 Rep., 91 a (2d Jac. 1).
