Entick v Carrington: 250 Years of the Rule of Law (Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law Book 9)

Entick v Carrington is one of the canons of English public law and in 2015 it is 250 years old. In 1762 the Earl of Halifax, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, despatched Nathan Carrington and three other of the King's messengers to John Entick's house in Stepney. They broke into his house, seizing his papers and causing significant damage. Why? Because he was said to have written seditious papers published in the Monitor. Entick sued Carrington and the other messengers for trespass. The defendants argued that the Earl of Halifax had given them legal authority to act as they had. Lord Camden ruled firmly in Entick's favour, holding that the warrant of a Secretary of State could not render lawful actions such as these which were otherwise unlawful. The case is a canonical statement of the common law's commitment to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. In this collection, leading public lawyers reflect on the history of the case, the enduring importance of the legal principles for which it stands, and the broader implications of Entick v Carrington 250 years on. Winner of the American Society for Legal History Sutherland Prize 2016. Cover Half-title Title Copyright Contents Notes on Contributors Introduction 1. The Politics and People of Entick v Carrington I. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT II. PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS: LAWYERS, JUDGES AND POLITICIANS III. POLITICAL PROPAGANDA AND THE LAW IV. THE CAMPAIGNS IN THE COURTS AND PARLIAMENT V. ENVOI 2. Revisiting Entick v Carrington: Seditious Libel and State Security Laws in Eighteenth-Century England I. INTRODUCTION II. SEDITIOUS LIBEL AND STATE SECURITY LAWS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY III. THE PRELUDE TO ENTICK V CARRINGTON IV. LORD CAMDEN CJ’S JUDGMENT IN ENTICK V CARRINGTON V. CONCLUSION 3. Entick and Carrington, the Propaganda Wars and Liberty of the Press I. INTRODUCTION II. POLITICS AND THE PRESS IN THE 1760S III. THE BATTLE IN THE WEEKLY PRESS AND THE FIRST SET OF WARRANTS IV. THE NORTH BRITON AND THE SECOND SET OF WARRANTS V. ACTIONS FOR TRESPASS AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT VI. SEDITIOUS LIBEL AND THE NORTH BRITON VII. AFTER THE GENERAL WARRANTS VIII. CONCLUSION 4. Was Entick v Carrington a Landmark? I. INTRODUCTION II. LANDMARK DECISIONS III. THE FAME OF ENTICK V CARRINGTON IV. THE POWERS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND THE ANCIENT VENERABLE EDIFICE V. CONCLUSION: CHANGE IN THE COMMON LAW 5. Entick v Carrington and the Legal Protection of Property I. INTRODUCTION II. TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF ENTICK III. PROPERTY AND THE DECISION IN ENTICK IV. PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CONTEXT V. THE PRIVILEGING OF PROPERTY IN ENTICK VI. THE INTERFERENCE WITH PROPERTY IN ENTICK VII. DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY VIII. RECONFIGURATION OF PROPERTY IX. PRESUMPTIONS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY X. ENTICK, PROPERTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST XI. CONCLUSION 6. The Authority of Entick v Carrington I. INTRODUCTION II. THE RULE OF LAW III. PRE-EMPTION AND RAM IV. THE POWERS OF MINISTERS V. ENTICK V CARRINGTON 7. Law, Liberty and Entick v Carrington I. INTRODUCTION II. THE SYLLOGISM OF LIBERTY III. AN ‘INQUIRY INTO AUTHORITY’ IV. ENTICK, THE LAW AND THE MODERN STATE 8. Entick v Carrington in Scots Law I. INTRODUCTION II. SEARCH WARRANTS AND THE CRIMINAL PROCESS III. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF EXECUTIVE POWER IV. CONCLUSIONS Appendix: Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 State Trials 1029 Index Entick v Carrington is one of the canons of English public law and in 2015 it will be 250 years old. In 1762 the Earl of Halifax, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, despatched Nathan Carrington and three other of the King's messengers to John Entick's house in Stepney. They broke into his house, seizing his papers and causing significant damage. Why? Because he was said to have written seditious papers published in the Monitor. Entick sued Carrington and the other messengers for trespass. The defendants argued that the Earl of Halifax had given them legal authority to act as they had. Lord Camden ruled firmly in Entick's favour, holding that the warrant of a Secretary of State could not render lawful actions such as these which were otherwise unlawful. The case is a canonical statement of the common law's commitment to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. In this collection, leading public lawyers reflect on the history of the case, the enduring importance of the legal principles for which it stands, and the broader implications of Entick v Carrington 250 years on.-- Provided by publisher "Entick v Carrington is one of the canons of English public law and in 2015 it is 250 years old. In 1762 the Earl of Halifax, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, despatched Nathan Carrington and three other of the King's messengers to John Entick's house in Stepney. They broke into his house, seizing his papers and causing significant damage. Why? Because he was said to have written seditious papers published in the Monitor. Entick sued Carrington and the other messengers for trespass. The defendants argued that the Earl of Halifax had given them legal authority to act as they had. Lord Camden ruled firmly in Entick's favour, holding that the warrant of a Secretary of State could not render lawful actions such as these which were otherwise unlawful. The case is a canonical statement of the common law's commitment to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. In this collection, leading public lawyers reflect on the history of the case, the enduring importance of the legal principles for which it stands, and the broader implications of Entick v Carrington 250 years on."--Bloomsbury Publishing. "Entick v Carrington is one of the canons of English public law and in 2015 it is 250 years old. In 1762 the Earl of Halifax, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, despatched Nathan Carrington and three other of the King's messengers to John Entick's house in Stepney. They broke into his house, seizing his papers and causing significant damage. Why? Because he was said to have written seditious papers published in the Monitor. Entick sued Carrington and the other messengers for trespass. The defendants argued that the Earl of Halifax had given them legal authority to act as they had. Lord Camden ruled firmly in Entick's favour, holding that the warrant of a Secretary of State could not render lawful actions such as these which were otherwise unlawful. The case is a canonical statement of the common law's commitment to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. In this collection, leading public lawyers reflect on the history of the case, the enduring importance of the legal principles for which it stands, and the broader implications of Entick v Carrington 250 years on."--Résumé de l'éditeur