process, order, or warrant out of some Court that hath jurisdiction of criminal matters," or is committed for an unbailable offence.

4. No Habeas Corpus to be granted in vacation time to persons neglecting to demand one for two terms.

5. Gaolers refusing to make returns, or to give a copy of the warrant of commitment, within six hours after it is demanded, to forfeit £100 for the first offence, and £200 for the second.

6. No one set at large upon any Habeas Corpus to be recommitted for the same offence, except by the Court having jurisdiction of the cause, under a penalty of £500.

7. Persons committed for high treason or felony may be liberated on bail, if not indicted in the second term of their commitment.

8. The Act not to apply to cases of debt.

9. No one to be removed from one prison or gaol to another except by Habeas Corpus, or some other legal writ.

10. Habeas Corpus may be obtained from the Courts of Chancery, Exchequer, King's Bench, or Common Pleas, and must not be denied to any one, under a penalty of £500.

11. A writ of Habeas Corpus may run in any County Palatine (p. 213), Cinque Port (p. 215), or other privileged place, and into the Channel Isles.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. All imprisonment beyond the seas declared illegal, except when prayed for.

17. All offences against the Act must be sued against within two years.

18. 19. Provide against persons avoiding the Assizes by claiming their Habeas Corpus.

21. The Act not to apply to persons committed on reasonable suspicion of petty treason and felony.

BILL OF RIGHTS, 1689 (1 Wm. & Mary, sess. 2, C. 2).

1. After rehearsing the various illegal acts whereby James II. abdicated the government, and the throne was declared void, declares the following illegal :

-

(i.) The exercise of the suspending power without the consent of Parliament (p. 165).

(ii.) The dispensing power "as it hath been assumed and exercised of late" (p. 166).

(iii.) The Court of Commissioners for ecclesiastical causes (p. 51). (iv.) Levying money by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament.

(v.) Interference with the presentation of petitions to the King. (See Case of the Seven Bishops, Appendix B.)

(vi.) Raising or maintaining a Standing Army without the consent of Parliament (p. 292).

(vii.) It also enacted that Protestants may keep suitable arms for their defence.

(viii.) That the election of Members of Parliament should be free.

(ix.) That freedom of speech in proceedings in Parliament shall not be questioned, except in Parliament.

(x.) That excessive bail, fines, and punishments are illegal.

(xi.) That jurors must be duly empanelled, and in cases of High Treason (pp. 2, sq.) must be freeholders.

(xii.) That grants of fines and forfeitures before conviction are void.

(xiii.) And that "for the redress of grievances, and the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws frequent Parliaments ought to be held."

2. It settles the succession (i.) on William and Mary, and the heirs of the body of Mary; (ii.) in default of such issue on the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body, and failing them on the heirs of the body of William III.

3. It substitutes new oaths to be taken "by all persons of whom the oaths of allegiance and supremacy might be required by law." 4. Recites the acceptance of the Crown on these conditions by William and Mary.

5. Parliament to sit to provide for "the 'settlement of the religion, laws, and liberties of this kingdom."

6. All the clauses in the Declaration of Rights are "the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this realm." 7. James II. “

having abdicated the government," William and

Mary are King and Queen.

9. Excludes from the succession those who hold communion with the Church of Rome, profess the Popish religion, or marry a Papist.

10. The Sovereign to assent on succession to the Act, 13 Car. II., for disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament. 12. Declares the invalidity of dispensation by non obstante.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT, 1700 (12 and 13 William III.).

1. After referring to the Bill of Rights, excludes Roman Catholics from the succession, declares that if a Papist obtained the Crown, "the people of these realms shall be, and are thereby, absolved of their allegiance," and settles the Crown on the Electress Sophia and the heirs of her body being Protestants.

2. Excludes all persons holding communion with the Church of Rome, professing the Popish religion, or marrying a Papist.

3. Provides that, to secure the religion, laws, and liberties of the country

(i.) The Sovereign shall join in communion with the Church of England as by law established.

(ii.) No war shall be undertaken in defence of any territories not belonging to the Crown of England, except with the consent of Parliament.

(iii.) The Sovereign not to quit Great Britain and Ireland without the consent of Parliament.

(iv.) All matters cognisable in the Privy Council to be transacted there, and resolutions to be signed by the councillors advising the same (p. 43).

(v.) Aliens (although naturalised, or denizens, except they are born of English parents), declared incapable of becoming Privy Councillors, Members of Parliament, of holding any civil or military post of trust, or of holding lands from the Crown.

(vi.) No placeman or pensioner to sit in Parliament (p. 138). (vii.) Judges to hold office quamdiu se bene gesserint.

(viii.) No pardon under the Great Seal to be pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons (p. 150).

4. All laws for securing the established religion, and the liberties of the people, to be confirmed and ratified.

APPENDIX B.

SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT CASES IN

CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.

ASHBY V. WHITE, 1702-1704 (pp. 110, 117).

Ashby, an elector of Aylesbury, brought an action against White, a returning officer, for refusing his vote, and obtained a verdict; this decision was reversed in the Court of Queen's Bench, but confirmed by the Lords, Jan., 1704. The action of the Lords led to a quarrel with the Commons, who declared that the decision of the rights of electors lay with the Lower House. The dispute was ended for a time by a prorogation, though the question remained undecided. (See Case of the Aylesbury Men.)

AYLESBURY MEn, Case of thE, 1703-1704 (pp. 110, 116, 118). On the decision in Ashby v. White (above,) being given, five Aylesbury men brought actions against the returning officers, and were committed by the Commons for breach of privilege. A writ of error to the Lords was refused by the Commons, and the Upper House requested the Queen to interfere. A prorogation ensued, and (the Aylesbury Men, continuing their action, won their case against the returning officers.

BARNARDISTON v. Soame, 1674 (26 Car. II.), (p. 109).

An action brought against Soame, Sheriff of Suffolk, for making a double return in the County election; the plaintiff, Barnardiston, being one of those returned. Barnardiston at first obtained a verdict, but this was set aside by the Exchequer Chamber, and by the House of Lords. An Act was, however, subsequently passed, 1696 (7 and 8 Wm. III., c. 7)., making double returns a ground for an action.

BATES' CASE, or Case of Impositions, 1606 (4 Jac. I.), (pp. 24, 55, 180, 192).

An action brought against a Levant merchant named John Bates, for refusing to pay a tax of 5/. a hundred weight on currants, imposed by the King. It was held that the King had power to impose such a tax, on the ground that the customs, as being connected with foreign affairs, were under the absolute control of the King.

BURDETT v. ABBOTT, 1811 (51 Geo. III.), (p. 116).

Brought for trespass by Sir Francis Burdett against the Speaker, who had issued a warrant against him for contempt; in the execution of this warrant the plaintiff's house was broken into.

The trespass was held to be justifiable, as the power of the House to commit for contempt was undoubted.

BUSHELL'S CASE, 1670 (22 Car. II.), (p. 83).

Two Quakers, Mead and Penn, tried under the Conventicle Act (p. 278), were acquitted contrary to the direction of the Recorder of London. The jury were fined for contempt, and Bushell, their foreman, in default of payment, was imprisoned; on his suing out his writ of Habeas Corpus Lord Chief Justice Vaughan held that finding a verdict "against full and manifest evidence, and against the direction of the Court" was not sufficient ground for imprisonment. By this decision the immunity of juries was established.

BUTLER v. CROUCH, 1568 (9 and 10 Eliz.), (p. 223).

Involved a question of Villenage, Butler having entered on the lands of Crouch, as being his villein was ejected by the defendant, in whose favour a decision was given.

CALVIN'S CASE, or Case of the Postnati, 1608 (6 Jac. I.), (p. 229). James I., wishing the union of the Crowns of England and Scotland to naturalise all those born after 1603 (postnati), caused an action to be brought in the name of one Robert Calvin, born 1605, against two persons who were supposed to have robbed him of his lands; to hold land in England he must be naturalized. A decision in favour of the naturalisation of the postnati was given.

COMMENDAMS, CASE OF, 1616 (pp. 24, 85).

An action was brought against Neile, Bishop of Lichfield, for holding a living in commendam (i.e., together with his bishopric), by two persons who claimed the presentation to the living James I. thereupon ordered the Judges not to proceed in the case until he had consulted with them; they disobeyed, and were severely reprimanded. All made submission but Chief Justice Coke, who was in consequence dismissed by the King.

Damaree and Purchase, Case OF, 1710 (9 Anne), (p. 4).

Daniel Damaree, and George Purchase, having participated in a riot arising out of the impeachment of Dr. Sacheverell for preaching "scandalous and seditious sermons," were convicted of treason; the decision being that their action in setting fire to certain meeting houses was proof presumptive of a design to burn down all meeting houses, and was therefore an overt act of levying war.

DARNEL'S CASE, 1627 (pp. 24, 194, 234).

Sir Thomas Darnel being imprisoned for refusing to give a forced loan to the King sued out his writ of Habeas Corpus. The Warden of the Fleet returned that he was imprisoned" by the special command of the King." The Judges, headed by Sir Nicholas Hyde, Chief Justice, held that this was sufficient ground for imprisonment; this decision caused great alarm in the country, as being contrary to Magna Carta, and to a Statute of 28 Edw. III.; and led to the Petition of Right, 1628.

ELIOT'S CASE, 1630 (pp. 105, 234).

Sir John Eliot, Denzil Hollis, and Benjamin Valentine were imprisoned by the Court of King's Bench for words spoken in the Commons. These proceedings were declared illegal 1641, and the decision was formally reversed by the Lords 1668.