replied that the two declarations are not irreconcilable, for though j the invasion of the Chaldeans might happen in the time of the exist- I ing generation to whom the prophet spoke, it might be not till after the death of Josiah that Jerusalem should be taken ; which in point of fact was the case. A more serious objection is that the ] psalm in chap. iii. could not have been composed in the earl} part of Josiah s reign before the reforms which he introduced had been begun, and that the first and second chapters could not have been uttered after these had been inaugurated, because then the state of things there described did not exist. To meet this it has been suggested that the two parts of the book may have been composed at different times, the earlier part in the beginning and the later after the middle of Josiah s reign. This is possible ; but the stand point of the prophet is in both, parts so much the same that it is not probable that any marked interval of time elapsed between the composition of the two. We are, however, so imperfectly acquainted with the minuter details of the history of the times that for aught we can tell there may have been seasons during the reign of Josiah when the good and the evil in the nation were so mixed that a prophet, whilst denouncing the wickedness he saw around him, and threaten ing a woe on the nation because of it, might yet be inspired by the remembrance of God s dealings with his people in the past and the hope of better things for the future to give utterance to such a strain of adoration and exultant gladness as the hymn at the close of the book presents ; nor is there any reason to doubt that the pious king and such men as Hilkiah the high priest, and those associated with him as "rulers of the house of God " (2 Chron. xxxv. 8), would be so in sympathy with the prophet in this that they would readily approve of his psalm being consigned to " the chief singer" to be used in the temple service. An argument in favour of assigning the date of this prophecy to the reign of Josiah has been drawn from the numerous coincidences in sentiment and phraseology between this book and those of Jeremiah and Zeph- aniah (cf. Hab. i. 8 with Jer. v. 6, iv. 13, and Zeph. iii. 3 ; Hab. i. 13 with Jer. xii. 1 ; Hab. ii. 9 with Jer. xlix. 16 ; Hab. ii. 13 with Jer. Ii. 58 ; Hab. ii. 16 with Jer. xxv. 27 ; Hab. ii. 20 with Zeph. i. 7, &c. ); and if in these instances Jeremiah and Zcphaniah have imitated Habakkuk or quoted from him, the argument must be held conclusive, for both these prophets began to prophesy iu the later part of the reign of Josiah. De Wette, Hitzig, Ewald, Bleek, and others assign the prophecy to the reign of Jehoiakim ; but for this there seems no good reason.
HABEAS CORPUS, in English law, is a writ issuing out of one of the superior courts, commanding the body of a prisoner to be brought before the court. There are various forms of this writ, according to the purposes for which it is intended. Thus habeas corpus ad respondenduvi is to bring up a prisoner confined by the process of an inferior court in order to charge him with a fresh action in the court above. Other forms are ad satisfaciendum (when judgment has been had against a prisoner in the court below), ad faciendum et recipiendum, or cum causa (to remove the proceedings into the superior court, the de fendant being under arrest), ad testifimndum (when the prisoner is wanted as a witness), &,c. These forms are now of little or no importance. The most famous form of the writ is the habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, the well-known remedy for the violation of personal liberty. It is addressed to the person in whose custody another is detained, and commands him to bring his prisoner before the court, with a statement of the day and cause of his capture and deten tion, " ad faciendum, subjiciendum, et recipiendum, to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the judge or courts awarding the writ may consider on that behalf." It is de scribed as a high prerogative writ, i.e., it is one of a number of extraordinary remedies, such as mandamus, prohibition, and the like, which the courts may grant on proper cause being shown. The writ of habeas corpus issues only after motion before the court or application to a judge, made on a sworn statement of facts setting up at least a probable case of illegal confinement. It is a common-law writ. "From the earliest records of the English law," says Hallam, "no freeman could be detained in prison except upon a criminal charge or conviction, or for a civil debt. In the former it was always in his power to demand of the Court of King s Bench a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, directed to the person detaining him in custody, by which he was enjoined to bring up the body of the prisoner with the warrant of commitment that the court might judge of its sufficiency and remand the party, admit him to bail, or discharge him, according to the nature of the charge. The writ issued of right, and could not be refused by the court."[1] Habeas corpus is, in fact, the appropriate instrument for enforcing the law of personal liberty, as declared in the Great Charter, that no "freeman maybe taken or im prisoned but by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
In Daniel s case (3 Car. L, 1G27) the judges held that the command of the king was a sufficient answer to a writ uf habeas corpus. The House of Commons thereupon passed resolutions to the contrary, and after a conference with the House of Lords the measure known as the Petition of Right was passed, which, inter alia, recited that, contrary to the Great Charter and other statutes, divers of the king s subjects had been imprisoned without any cause shown, and when they were brought up on habeas corpus, and no cause was shown other than the special command of the king signified by the privy council, were nevertheless remanded to prison, concluded " that no freeman in any such manner as is before mentioned be imprisoned or detained." In Jenkes s case, 1676, the lord chancellor (Lord Nottingham) refused to issue a habeas corpus in the vacation. Shortly afterwards was passed the famous Habeas Corpus Act (31 Car. II. c. 2), which is sometimes described as a consequence of the harsh if not illegal refusal of the writ in Jenkes s case, but which, as Hallarn shows, was really due to the arbitrary proceedings of Lord Clarendon. The Act itself passed the Lords after many similar measures sent up by the Commons had been rejected.
been used by sheriffs and jailers in making returns oi writs of habeas corpus directed to them ; and for the preven tion thereof, and the more speedy relief of all persons im prisoned for criminal or supposed criminal matters, it enacts in substance as follows (1) When a writ of habeas corpus is directed to a sheriff or other person in charge of a prisoner, he must within 3, 10, or 20 days, according to the distance of the place of commitment, bring the body of his prisoner to the court, with the true cause of his detainer or imprison ment unless the commitment was for treason or felony plainly expressed in the warrant of commitment. (2) If any person be committed for any crime unless for treason or felony plainly expressed in the warrant it shall be law ful for such person or persons (other than persons convicted or in execution by legal process) in time of vacation, to appeal to the lord chancellor as a judge, who shall issue a habeas corpus returnable immediately, and on the return thereof shall discharge the prisoner on giving security for his appearance before the proper court unless the party so committed is detained upon a legal process or under a justice s warrant for a non-bailable offence. Persons neglecting for two terms to pray for a habeas corpus shall have none in vacation. (3) Persons set at large on habeas corpus shall not be recommitted for the same offence unless by the legal order and process of the court having cog nizance of the case. (4) A person committed to prison for treason or felony shall, if he requires it, in the first week of the next term or the first clay of the next session of oyer and terminer, be indicted in that term or session or else admitted to bail, unless it appears on affidavit that the witnesses for the crown are not ready ; and if he is not indicted and tried in the second term or session after commitment, or if after trial he is acquitted, he shall be discharged from imprisonment. (5) No inhabitant of England (except persons contracting, or, after con viction for felony, electing to be transported) shall be
sent prisoner to Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, <fec., or any place
- ↑ Constitutional History, vol. iii. c. 13.
