Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1861-06-13

the English executive to usurp and retain it.
The right Of the subject to the benefit Of
the writ Of habeas corpus, it must be recol
lected, was one of the great points of con-
troversy during the long struggle in Eng
land between arbitrary government and free
institutions, and dmust therefore have strong
ly attracted the attention of the statesmen
engaged in framing new and as they sup
posed, frccr government than the one
which they had thrown off by the revolution
For from the earliest history of the Common
Law, ifa person was imprisoncd--no matter
by what, authority-hc had right to the
writ Of haJeas corpus to bring his case be-
fore the Kings Bench and if no specific
offence was charged against him in the war
rant of commitment, he was entitled to be
forthwith discharged and if an offense was
charged which was bailable in it's character,
the court was bound to set him at liberty on
bail. And the most exciting contests be-
tween the Crown and the people of England,
from the time of Magma Charta. were in re-
latior to the privilege of this writ, and they
continued until the passage of the statute of
31st Charles H., commonly known as the
great habeas corpus act.
This statute put an end to the struggle,
and finally and firmly secured the liberty of
the subject from the usurpation and oppres-
sion of the Executive branch of the govern
ment.E 1t nevertheless conferred no new
right upon the subject, but only secured
right already existing. For, although the
right could not be justly denied, there was
often no effectual remedy against its viola
ton. Until the statute of the 18th of Will
liam III. the Judges held their Offices at
the pleasure of the king, aud the influence
which he exercised over timid, time-serving,
and partisan judges often induced them,
spon some pretext or another, to refuse to
discharge the party although he was entitled
to it by law or delayed their decisions from
time to time, so as to prolong the imprison-
ment of persons who were obnoxious to the
king for their political opinions, or had in
Cured his resentment in any other way.
The great and inestimable valueof the
habeas corpus act Of the 31st Charles II. is
that it contains provisions which compel
courts and judges, and all parties concerned,
to perform their duties promptly, in the
manaaer specified in the statute
Apassage in Blackstone's Commentaries,
sheFsng the ancient state Of the law upon
praetised through The power and influence
of tile Crown, and short extract from Hal
lam's Constitutional History, stating the
circumstances which gave rise to the passage
of this statute, explain briefly, but fully, all
that is material to this subject.
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the
Laws of England, Sd VOL, 133-134, says:
TO assert an absolute exemption from
Imprisonment in all cases, is inconsistent
with every idea Of law and political society,
and in the end would destroy all civil liber-
ty, by rendering its protection impossible.
'iBut the glory of the English law con-
sists in clearly defining the times, the causes
and the extent, when, wherefore, and what
degree the Imprisonment Of the subject may
be lawful This it is which induces the
absolute necessity Of expressing upon every
commitment the reason for which it is made,
that the court upon a haDeos corpus may
examine into its validity, and according to
the circumstances of the case, may discharge,
admit to bail, OR remand the prisoner.
"And yet early in the reign Of Charles
[. the Court Of Kings Bench. relying on
some arbitrary prcccdents, (and those per-
haps misunderstood, determined that they
would not, upon ha6eas corpus, either bail,
or deliver a prisoner, though committed
without any case assigned, in case he was
committed by the special command of the
King or by the Lords of the Privy Council.
This drew on parliamentary inquiry and
produced the Petition of Rights Charles
(which recites this illegal Judgment, and
enacts that no frecmen hereafter shall be so
imprisoned or detained But when in the
following year Mr.. Scden and others were
committed by the Lords of the Council in
pursuance of his majesty's special command,
under general charge of notable con-
tempts, and stirring up sedition against the
klng and the government, the judges de-
layed for two terms Gncluding also the long
vaeatlon) to deliver an opinion how far such
a charge was bailablc. And when at length
they agreed that it was, they however an
nexed condition Of finding sureties for their
good behavior, which still protracted their
Imprisonment, the Chief Justice, Sir Nicho-
las Hyde, at the same time declaring that
If they were again remanded for that cause
perhaps the court would not afterward grant
a habeas corpus, being already made ac-
qualntcd with the cause of the Imprisonment.
But this was heard with indignation and
astonishmcnt by every lawyer present, ae-
cording to Mr.. Sclden's own account of the
matter, whose resentment was not cooled at
the distance Of four and twenty years"
1t is worthy Of remark that the offenses
charged against the prisoner in this case,
and relied on as a justification for his arrest,
and imprisonment, in their nature and char
acter, and in the loose and vague manner
in which they are stated, bear q striking
resemblance to those assigned in the warrant
for the arrest of Mr. Seldcn And yet,
even at that day, the warrant was regarded
as such fragrant violation of the rights of
the subject, that the delay of the time serv-
ing judges to set him at liberty upon the ha-
beds corpus issued in his behalf excited uni
versal indignation at the bar. The extract
from [Iallam's Constitutional History is