cap. 18 88 Edw. III. cap. 9 42 Edw. III. cap. 3. 1 Richard
II. cap. 12.

*** Chap. 29

Turbulent and seditious times frequently occurred, when the safety of
the people absolutely required the confinement of factious leaders;
and by the genius of the old constitution, the prince, of himself,
was accustomed to assume every branch of prerogative which was found
necessary for the preservation of public peace and of his own authority.
Expediency, at other times, would cover itself under the appearance of
necessity; and, in proportion as precedents multiplied, the will alone
of the sovereign was sufficient to supply the place of expediency, of
which he constituted himself the sole judge. In an age and nation where
the power of a turbulent nobility prevailed, and where the king had no
settled military force, the only means that could maintain public peace,
was the exertion of such prompt and discretionary powers in the crown;
and the public itself had become so sensible of the necessity, that
those ancient laws in favor of personal liberty, while often violated,
had never been challenged or revived during the course of near three
centuries. Though rebellious subjects had frequently, in the open field,
resisted the king's authority, no person had been found so bold, while
confined and at mercy, as to set himself in opposition to regal power,
and to claim the protection of the constitution against the will of
the sovereign. It was not till this age, when the spirit of liberty
was universally diffused, when the principles of government were nearly
reduced to a system, when the tempers of men, more civilized, seemed
less to require those violent exertions of prerogative, that these five
gentlemen above mentioned, by a noble effort, ventured, in this national
cause, to bring the question to a final determination. And the king was
astonished to observe, that a power exercised by his predecessors almost
without interruption, was found, upon trial, to be directly opposite to
the clearest laws, and supported by few undoubted precedents in courts
of judicature. These had scarcely in any instance refused bail upon
commitments by special command of the king, because the persons
committed had seldom or never dared to demand it, at least to insist on
their demand.

{1627.} Sir Randolf Crew, chief justice, had been displaced, as
unfit for the purposes of the court: Sir Nicholas Hyde, esteemed more
obsequious, had obtained