1786-05-19 (static/transcriptions/1786/05/109.jpg)

69)

2dly wr he had a right to direct the seizure of paper.
Lord Camden said in that case as it is reported 2 Wilson 289. “Formerly the Secretary of State was not a Privy Couns:” or considered as a Magistrate he began to be significant about the time of the revolution and grew great when the Princes of Europe sent ambassadors hither; it seems inconsistent that a secretary of state should have power to commit, and no power to administer an Oath, or take bail; who can commit and not have power to examine? the house of commons indeed commit without oath, but that is nothing to the present case; there is no account in our law books of Secretaries of State except in the [ILL] cases mentioned; he is not to be found among the old conservators; in Lambard, Crompton, Fitzherbert &c &c nor is a privy counsellor to be found among our old Books, till Kendall and Roes case; and 1 Len. 70.71. 29 Eliz: is the first case that takes notice of a commitment by a Secretary of State; but in 2 Leon. 175. The judges knew no such committing magistrate as the secretary of state.” He afterwards added. “In the case of Wilkes & members of the commons house, all his books & papers were seized & taken away; we were told by one of these messengers that he was obliged by his oath to sweep away all papers whatsoever; if this is law it would be found in our books, but no such law ever existed in this country; our law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s close without his leave, if he does, he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at all, if he will treat upon his neighbour’s ground, he must justify it by Law.
The [practice?] in this case has the sanction of 1 Hale 586
Altho’