RASTAS CORTITS, WRIT OF, a writ directed by courts of law or equity to produce the body of a person illegally detained, and to state the reasons of such detention, so that the court may judge of their sufficiency. This writ is one of the chief guards of English liberty, and the envy of foreign nations, being one of the best securities against tyranny ever devised. It is often erroneously supposed that this efficacious protection of personal freedom was first bestowed by the statute of 31 ch. H. c. 2, called the habeas corpus act, But the true foundation of that act, as well as of many other cardi nal principles of the English constitution, is to be found in the great charter, or 11agna Charts, of which Hallam (1 Const. /Est. 10) observes: "No freeman could be detained in prison except upon a criminal charge on conviction, or for a civil debt. In the former case, 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. This writ issued of right, and could not be refused by the court." The great charter, as prof. Creasy sums up this part of its substance, "contained two great principles. First, that no man shall be imprisoned on mere general grounds of suspicion, or for an indefinite period, at the discretion or caprice of the executive power; but that imprisonment shall be only inflicted as the result of a legal trial and sentence, or forthe purpose of keeping in safe custody, when necessary, an accused person on a definite charge, until he can be tried on that charge. Secondly, that, as a general rule, every person accused of a criminal offense shall have the question of his guilt or innocence determined by a free jury of his fellow-countrymen, and not by any nominee of the government." And Blackstone, with great spirit, thus discourses on the social and political effects of this feature of the British constitution (1 131. Com. 135): " Of great importance to the public is the preser vation of this personal liberty, for if once it were left in the power of any the highest magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whothever he or his officers thought proper, there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. Some have thought that unjust attacks, even upon life or property, at the arbitrary will of the magistrate are less dan gerous to the commonwealth, than such as are made upon the personal liberty of the subject. To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate without accusa tion or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the kingdom ; but confinement of the _person by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.
And yet, sometimes, when the state is in real danger, even this may be a necessary meas ure. But the happiness of our constitution is, that it is not left to the executive power to determine when the danger of the state is so great as to render this measure expedient, for it is the parliament only or legislative power that, whenever it sees proper, can authorize the crown, by suspending the habeas corpus act for a short and limited time, to imprison suspected persons without giving any reason for so doing." The habeas corpus act, which was passed in 31 ch. II. c. 2, therefore did not introduce any new principle, but merely defined with greater precision and detail the appropriate remedies, in consequence of the frivolous objections made by the judges in the preced ing reign. The substance of these details is as follows: Where any person is committed and charged with crime, the lord chancellor or any of the judges may, unless there has been great delay in application, issue the writ, and order the person to be brought up and discharged with or without bail. The writ is to oe obeyed more or less promptly according to the distance, but in no case must the delay exceed twenty clays. Any officer or keeper neglecting to deliver a copy of the warrant of commitment, or shifting the prisoner to another custody without cause, shall forfeit R100, and for the second offense £200, and be disabled to hold office. No person once delivered by habeas corpus shall be recommitted for the same offense under a penalty of Every person committed for treason or felony may insist on being tried at the next assizes, or admitted to bail, unless the crown wit nesses cannot be ready in that time; and if not tried at the second assizes or sessions, he shall be discharged from the imprisonment. The prisoner may apply either to the court of chancery, or to the courts of queen's bench, common pleas, or exchequer, and any judge denying such writ is liable to a fine of £500. The writ may be applied for by persons confined in any part of England, or Jersey and Guernsey. Indeed, it was recently held. in the case of Anderson the fugitive slave, that this writ could be applied for per son confined in Canada or any other of the colonies, even though there were courts established there which had previously been applied to. and had the power to issue the writ, but refused to do so. The judges of the queen's beneh,On examining the author ities, held that this.prerogative.power had always been inherent in the English court in favor of British itibjdi.isherever imprisoned, except :in a filakdgn• cakatry, and had never been taken away by express statute. There has now, however, been passed a statute (25 Viet.) depriving the English courts of this jurisdiction over the colonies, whenever local courts exist by which such a jurisdiction can be exercised.