124:
215:, a distinguished legal scholar, argued that "by the constant and settled laws of this kingdom, without which we have nothing, no man can be justly imprisoned ...... without a cause of the commitment expressed in the return", and that to hold otherwise would be to treat the free man as having no greater legal status than the
238:
Although the judges had refused to release the prisoners, Charles decided not to pursue charges; since his opponents included the previous Chief
Justice, and other senior legal officers, the ruling meant the loans would almost certainly be deemed illegal. Selden claimed afterwards there was an effort
116:, notorious for inefficiency and extravagance. Charles refused to allow this and instead adopted a policy of "forced loans"; those who refused to pay would be imprisoned without trial, and if they continued to resist, sent before the
258:
restored the right to petition the courts for release against the wishes of the king and his
Council, but it was not completely effective and the practice of executive detention without specific cause continued, notably
239:
made by
Charles and Robert Heath to tamper with the rulings of the case, pointing to the fact that both Heath and Hyde were subsequently knighted. While historians have generally agreed with Selden's assertions,
204:. The problem before the court was the defendants had been arrested but the warrants did not specify why; this was unsurprising, since Coke had previously ruled the loans themselves were illegal.
637:
61:. Charles had imposed forced loans, and when the knights argued that such loans were illegal and refused to pay, they were imprisoned without trial. The prisoners sought
73:(by special command of the lord the king). The court declined to release the prisoners, holding that under the common law the king was not required to be more specific.
662:
154:
complied only after he was dismissed. There were over 76 men who refused to pay the tax as they claimed that it was unauthorized by
Parliament. Among them were
211:
allowed the king to take whatever action he considered necessary "in time of crisis" and thus he had no need to justify the detentions. For the defence,
159:
250:. The controversy surrounding the case resulted in a majority of the newly-elected MPs being opposed to the king, and parliament rapidly approved the
180:. Approved on 3 November 1627, the court ordered the five be brought before them in order to clarify what law they had broken; it became known as
113:
197:
230:
on the basis that, as there were no charges, "the could not be freed, as the offence was probably too dangerous for public discussion".
131:
80:, marking the first of a series of legislative changes and court cases that ultimately led to the modern constitutional understanding of
69:
court that the king should specify what law they were alleged to have broken. The king refused, simply stating that they were being held
435:
151:
105:
557:
51:
484:
247:
101:
155:
143:
657:
652:
222:
Although the judges were unable to determine what law had been broken, they upheld the right of the king to detain
270:
85:
647:
117:
616:
606:
569:
511:
255:
254:
which reversed the effect of the decision by preventing the power of arbitrary committal by the king. The
251:
77:
620:
567:
Kishlansky, Mark (1999). "Tyranny Denied: Charles I, Attorney
General Heath and the Five Knights' Case".
109:
642:
135:
97:
58:
269:
as a protected guarantee of fundamental liberty was eventually accomplished by the reforms of the
594:
536:
470:
462:
171:
123:
586:
553:
528:
431:
208:
578:
520:
489:
454:
167:
240:
610:
147:
127:
17:
631:
598:
540:
474:
261:
246:
Charles's need for income, with so many openly refusing to pay, forced him to recall
193:
176:
46:
201:
501:
57:
The case was brought in 1627 by five knights who were being held in detention by
212:
163:
493:
582:
524:
66:
590:
532:
112:
first demanded an investigation into the conduct of the army commander, the
445:
Cust, Richard (1985). "Charles I, the Privy
Council, and the Forced Loan".
609:, ed. (1906). "8: The case of the Five Knights, before the King's Bench".
216:
509:
Guy, J.A. (1982). "The Origin of the
Petition of Right Reconsidered".
466:
76:
Parliament rapidly passed legislation to overturn the result, in the
318:(3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. p. 241.
458:
122:
612:
227:
50:
case of major significance in the history of
English and later
387:
385:
196:, the new Lord Chief Justice, with the prosecution led by
84:
as a protected guarantee of fundamental liberty, in the
482:
Christianson, Paul (2004). "Selden, John (1584–1654)".
265:
in 1653. The modern constitutional understanding of
226:(by special command of the lord the king) and denied
316:Early Modern England 1485-1714 A Narrative History
138:for refusing to declare the "forced loans" legal
8:
488:(online ed.). Oxford University Press.
391:
376:
352:
301:
428:The Politics of the Ancient Constitution
340:
485:Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
282:
663:United Kingdom constitutional case law
150:ruled this policy was illegal and the
638:Court of King's Bench (England) cases
402:
400:
314:Bucholz, Robert; Key, Newton (2020).
184:, although Darnell himself withdrew.
174:, who submitted a joint petition for
7:
550:Sir Edward Coke: A Force for Freedom
289:
108:. While supportive of the conflict,
364:
328:
25:
224:per special mandatum domino regis
132:Chief Justice of the King's Bench
71:per special mandatum domino regis
52:United Kingdom constitutional law
27:1627 English habeas corpus case
1:
552:. Barry Rose Law Publishers.
106:Anglo-Spanish War (1625–1630)
44:) (K.B. 1627), is an English
502:UK public library membership
36:(1627) 3 How St Tr 1 (also
679:
615:(Third revised ed.).
447:Journal of British Studies
411:. Oxford University Press.
192:The case was heard by Sir
583:10.1017/S0018246X98008279
548:Hostettler, John (1997).
525:10.1017/S0018246X82000017
271:Habeas Corpus Act of 1679
104:to approve taxes for the
86:Habeas Corpus Act of 1679
409:The Law of Habeas Corpus
617:Oxford University Press
607:Gardiner, Samuel Rawson
426:Burgess, Glenn (1992).
407:Farbey, Judith (2011).
134:, who was dismissed by
18:Five Knights' case
570:The Historical Journal
512:The Historical Journal
494:10.1093/ref:odnb/25052
256:Habeas Corpus Act 1640
252:Petition of Right 1628
139:
78:Petition of Right 1628
126:
658:Charles I of England
243:has disputed them.
65:and an order from a
331:, pp. 291–292.
292:, pp. 209–211.
102:recalled Parliament
248:Parliament in 1628
207:Heath claimed the
156:Sir Thomas Darnell
140:
128:Sir Randolph Crewe
114:Duke of Buckingham
33:Five Knights' case
653:Royal prerogative
500:(Subscription or
379:, pp. 53–83.
209:Royal Prerogative
16:(Redirected from
670:
624:
602:
563:
544:
505:
497:
478:
441:
413:
412:
404:
395:
389:
380:
374:
368:
362:
356:
350:
344:
338:
332:
326:
320:
319:
311:
305:
299:
293:
287:
198:Attorney General
168:John Heveningham
21:
678:
677:
673:
672:
671:
669:
668:
667:
648:1627 in England
628:
627:
605:
566:
560:
547:
508:
499:
481:
444:
438:
425:
422:
417:
416:
406:
405:
398:
392:Hostettler 1997
390:
383:
377:Kishlansky 1999
375:
371:
363:
359:
353:Hostettler 1997
351:
347:
339:
335:
327:
323:
313:
312:
308:
302:Hostettler 1997
300:
296:
288:
284:
279:
262:Lilburne's Case
241:Mark Kishlansky
236:
190:
160:Sir John Corbet
94:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
676:
674:
666:
665:
660:
655:
650:
645:
640:
630:
629:
626:
625:
603:
564:
558:
545:
519:(2): 289–312.
506:
479:
459:10.1086/385832
453:(2): 208–235.
442:
437:978-0333527467
436:
421:
418:
415:
414:
396:
394:, p. 127.
381:
369:
367:, p. 293.
357:
355:, p. 126.
345:
333:
321:
306:
304:, p. 125.
294:
281:
280:
278:
275:
235:
232:
189:
186:
182:Darnell's Case
172:Edmund Hampden
148:Randolph Crewe
93:
90:
59:King Charles I
42:Darnell's case
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
675:
664:
661:
659:
656:
654:
651:
649:
646:
644:
641:
639:
636:
635:
633:
622:
618:
614:
613:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
571:
565:
561:
559:1-872328-67-9
555:
551:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
507:
503:
495:
491:
487:
486:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
443:
439:
433:
430:. Macmillan.
429:
424:
423:
419:
410:
403:
401:
397:
393:
388:
386:
382:
378:
373:
370:
366:
361:
358:
354:
349:
346:
343:, p. 59.
342:
341:Gardiner 1906
337:
334:
330:
325:
322:
317:
310:
307:
303:
298:
295:
291:
286:
283:
276:
274:
272:
268:
267:habeas corpus
264:
263:
257:
253:
249:
244:
242:
233:
231:
229:
225:
220:
218:
214:
210:
205:
203:
199:
195:
194:Nicholas Hyde
187:
185:
183:
179:
178:
177:habeas corpus
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
144:Chief Justice
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
119:
118:Privy Council
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
91:
89:
87:
83:
82:habeas corpus
79:
74:
72:
68:
64:
63:habeas corpus
60:
55:
53:
49:
48:
47:habeas corpus
43:
39:
35:
34:
19:
611:
577:(1): 53–83.
574:
568:
549:
516:
510:
483:
450:
446:
427:
408:
372:
360:
348:
336:
324:
315:
309:
297:
285:
266:
260:
245:
237:
234:Significance
223:
221:
206:
202:Robert Heath
191:
181:
175:
141:
95:
81:
75:
70:
62:
56:
45:
41:
37:
32:
31:
29:
643:1627 in law
619:. pp.
213:John Selden
164:Walter Erle
632:Categories
504:required.)
277:References
110:Parliament
92:Background
67:common law
599:159628863
591:0018-246X
541:159977078
533:0018-246X
475:143537267
290:Cust 1985
152:judiciary
136:Charles I
98:Charles I
96:In 1626,
365:Guy 1982
329:Guy 1982
188:Judgment
170:and Sir
38:Darnel's
420:Sources
217:villein
597:
589:
556:
539:
531:
498:
473:
467:175703
465:
434:
166:, Sir
162:, Sir
130:, the
621:57–64
595:S2CID
537:S2CID
471:S2CID
463:JSTOR
587:ISSN
554:ISBN
529:ISSN
432:ISBN
259:with
228:bail
200:Sir
146:Sir
142:The
100:had
30:The
579:doi
521:doi
490:doi
455:doi
273:.
88:.
40:or
634::
593:.
585:.
575:42
573:.
535:.
527:.
517:25
515:.
469:.
461:.
451:24
449:.
399:^
384:^
219:.
158:,
120:.
54:.
623:.
601:.
581::
562:.
543:.
523::
496:.
492::
477:.
457::
440:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
