The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part F.: From Charles II. to James II.
David Hume · en
The standing army and the king’s guards were by the commons voted to be
illegal; a new pretension, it must be confessed, but necessary for the
full security of liberty and a limited constitution.
Arbitrary imprisonment is a grievance which, in some degree, has place
almost in every government, except in that of Great Britain; and our
absolute security from it we owe chiefly to the present parliament;
a merit, which makes some atonement for the faction and violence into
which their prejudices had, in other particulars, betrayed them. The
Great Charter had laid the foundation of this valuable part of liberty;
the petition of right had renewed and extended it; but some provisions
were still wanting to render it complete, and prevent all evasion or
delay from ministers and judges. The act of habeas corpus, which passed
this session, served these purposes. By this act, it was prohibited to
send any one to a prison beyond sea. No judge, under severe penalties,
must refuse to any prisoner a writ of habeas corpus, by which the jailer
was directed to produce in court the body of the prisoner, (whence
the writ has its name,) and to certify the cause of his detainer and
imprisonment. If the jail lie within twenty miles of the judge, the
writ must be obeyed in three days; and so proportionably for greater
distances. Every prisoner must be indicted the first term after his
commitment, and brought to trial in the subsequent term. And no man,
after being enlarged by order of court, can be recommitted for the same
offence. This law seems necessary for the protection of liberty in a
mixed monarchy; and as it has not place in any other form of
government, this consideration alone may induce us to prefer our present
constitution to all others. It must, however, be confessed, that there
is some difficulty to reconcile with such extreme liberty the full
security and the regular police of a state, especially the police of
great cities. It may also be doubted, whether the low state of the
public revenue in this period, and of the military power, did not
still render some discretionary authority in the crown necessary to the
support of government.