Page 10
of arbitrary power, the most destructive of
English liberty and the fundamental principles of
law, that was ever found in an English lawbook.
. . . [T]he writ prayed for in this petition,
being general, is illegal. It is a power that
places the liberty of every man in the hands of
every petty officer. . . . A man's house is his
castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well
guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ,
if it should be declared legal, would totally
annihilate this privilege. Customhouse officers
may enter our houses when they please; we are
commanded to permit their entry. . . . Bare sus-
picion without oath is sufficient. . . . Every
man prompted by revenge, ill humor, or wantonness
to inspect the inside of his neighbor's house
may get a writ of assistance.15
Although Chief Justice Hutchinson and his colleagues
upheld the legality of the writs, American historian
Albert Bushnell Hart credits Otis's fiery speech as being
"the first in the chain of events which led directly and
irresistibly to revolution and independence."16 John
Adams, who heard Otis's argument, said that every man in
that crowded audience "appeared to me to go away, as I
did, ready to take up arms against writs of assistance.
Then and there was the first scene of the first act of
opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then
and there the child Independence was born."17
Colonial Admiration for Lord Camden and the Common Law
The American colonists were not the only ones strug-
gling against the general search warrant. English citi-
zens in London and elsewhere were also battling against
the overbearing British Crown. One of the most noteworthy
legal controversies in Great Britain was Entick v.
Carrington (1765).18 That case began in November 1762,
when the Earl of Halifax, the secretary of state, issued
an executive warrant to seize John Entick, as well as his
books and papers. Entick, a writer for an opposition
newspaper, was suspected of publishing seditious libels.
"The officers executing the warrant ransacked Entick's home
for four hours and carted away great quantities of books
and papers."19 After that search, Entick sued the Crown's
agents for trespass, and a jury ultimately awarded him 300
pounds in damages.
On appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, the British
officials argued that their search warrant immunized them