Not until after the Restoration was the famous Habeas Corpus Act passed— (31 Car. H, chap. 2). This act was carried in the House of Lords by an artifice. Gray and Norreys were named to be tellers. Lord Norreys, being a man subject to vapors, was not at all attentive, so, a very fat lord coming in, Lord Gray counted him for 10, as a jest at first ; but seeing Lord Norreys had not observed it, he went on with this mis reckoning of 10, so it was reported to the house and declared that they who were for the bill were the majority, though it indeed went to the other side.'— Bishop Burnett, 'History of his Own Times' (Oxford ed., i833). The act provides that any person committed to prison 'for any crime, unless for treason or felon plainly expressed in the warrant of commitment, may obtain a writ of habeas corpus from the Lord Chancellor or any judge of the common law courts, in vacation or in term time. Judges refusing to issue the writ are penalized; and jailers who fail to exhibit the warrant of commitment to a prisoner or his counsel on demand, or who shift prisoners from their custody to that of another officer, are subject to fine and disqualification from office. A return to the writ must be made in three days (or in not more than 20 days, if the distance of the place of confinement from the court be great). Upon the return of the writ the judge It re quired, to admit the prisoner to bail. Prisoners committed on charges of treason or felony, if not bailed, may insist upon being tried at the next assizes, and if not tried at the second assizes following commitment they must be dis charged. To provide for cases where persons are not held in custody on criminal charges, but are restrained of liberty in any other man ner, imprisonment for debt excepted, the statute of 56 Geo. III was passed.
The American Habeas Corpus Acts closely follow the English statutes. Imprisonment
for debt has been almost everywhere abol ished, however, and even fraudulent debtors are discharged °on the limits,° that is to say they may give bail not to remove from the county. The Constitution of the United States declares that the °privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may re quire it.° During the Civil War the President authorized General Scott to suspend the privi lege when in hisjudgment it seemed necessary to do so; but Chief Justice Taney, who had issued a writ which the general refused to obey, uttered the opinion that the power of sus pension resided solely in Congress. Judicial and professional opinion appears to concur in this view; but the Act of Congress of 3 March 1863 authorized the President to suspend the writ; and this delegated power was exercised not only by Lincoln during the war, but by Grant during the reconstruction period in 1871. By Act of Congress 24 Sept. 1789, it was pro vided that writs of habeas corpus should be issued by Federal judges only in cases where prisoners are in custody °by color of the au thority of the United States, ° or are committed for trial, or are required as witnesses to testify, in a Federal court. The Act of 2 March 1833 extended this power so that the writ might issue for prisoners held for violation of the Constitution, or of a treaty of the United States, even when in the custody of the au thorities or the courts of a State. The Act of 29 Aug. 1842, gives to the Federal courts and judges exclusive power to issue the writ when the prisoner is the subject of a foreign power, held for an act done under a commission from his government, and a question of international law is involved. The State courts are precluded from issuing the writ in the cases mentioned. See HrGH TREASON. STEPHEN PFEIL.