The Origins of the Petition of Right Reconsidered

Abstract

Whatever their differing interpretations of the prehistory of the Civil War, historians of early Stuart England have long recognized the unsolved problems raised by the parliament of 1628. Did Charles I abuse the legal procedures of King's Bench in the five knights’ case in order to defy the spirit of English ‘due process’ legislation? In starting the chain of events which led to the petition, who were the innovators? Why did the house of commons pass resolutions which were an absolute denial of Charles I's right of discretionary imprisonment in any circumstances? And why did M.P.s endure the ugliest parliamentary scenes before 1640 in their desire to secure an explanatory document in the spirit of their resolutions? In view of the wealth of literature on the petition, it is perhaps surprising that these issues have never been satisfactorily addressed.

Is Public Law Ordinary?

“…The implications of Darnel's Case were immediately apparent, and concerns were expressed that the case, although only an interim order, might be cited as precedent in future cases. Parliamentarians met in conference to argue the legal points raised by the judges' order. Coke, then a member of Parliament and not a judge, insisted that although the prerogative is ‘highly tendered and respected … it hath bounds set unto it by the laws of England’, for ‘the common law has admeasured the king's prerogative’ – and Coke added that if he had previously been ‘of another mind’ about this issue it was because he had been ‘deceived’ by false authorities.…”

FIFTY YEARS OF THE HISTORICAL JOURNAL

“…Accordingly, the terms ' diplomacy ' and 'diplomatic ' 45 but also participated in moves towards regional differentiation through studies of counties and localities. Accordingly, the terms ' diplomacy ' and 'diplomatic ' 45 but also participated in moves towards regional differentiation through studies of counties and localities.…”

A Body Worth Having?

“…17 While the basic principle which the Habeas Corpus Act affirmednamely, that the monarch, though sovereign, was bound by natural and common law -had been implicit in English jurisprudence since the signing of the Magna Carta, in practice things were not always so clear. 18 Monarchs could circumvent writs of habeas corpus by various legal maneuvers, including assertions that the crown held powers of discretionary imprisonment, which seemed to call the whole principle into question (Guy, 1982;Reeve, 1986). During the parliamentary debates leading up to the Civil War, Charles I's disregard for the legal status of English property and persons generated much discussion about whether or not he had abrogated his monarchal responsibility and therefore his monarchal authority (and ultimately his right to his monarchal head).…”