Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:57:28.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Habeas Corpus: from England to Empire

Review products

By HallidayPaul D., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. 512 pp. ISBN 978-0-674-04901-7 £29.95 hardback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2011

Michael Lobban
Michael Lobban*
Affiliation:
School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ‘Great Writ’ of habeas corpus has long had an iconic status as the ‘writ of liberty’ which ensured that no person could be detained in prison without being put to trial by a jury of his peers. According to the traditional version, popularised by Whiggish constitutional writers from the late seventeenth century onwards, the English constitution as embodied in the common law had, since time immemorial, striven to protect the fundamental rights of Englishmen and women, which included the right to personal liberty. The common law had supplied the writ of habeas corpus, which secured the provision of Magna Carta, that no freeman be imprisoned save by the judgment of a jury of his peers. In the course of the seventeenth century, the Whig version ran, kings with an absolutist bent sought to undermine ancient liberties, by claiming prerogative powers to imprison without trial, and by appointing supine judges who would not protect people's liberties. It took the triumph of Parliament to restore and perfect them. For William Blackstone, one of the key statutes which secured ‘the complete restitution of English liberty’ was the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, ‘that second magna carta’. As Blackstone put it:

‘Magna carta only, in general terms, declared, that no man shall be imprisoned contrary to law: the habeas corpus act points him out effectual means, as well to release himself, though committed even by the king in council, as to punish all those who shall thus unconstitutionally misuse him.’

Type
Review essays
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 257 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bacon, Matthew (1736) A New Abridgment of the Law, 5 vols. London: H. Lintot.Google Scholar
Birch, Thomas (1848) The Court and Times of Charles the First. London: Henry Colburn.Google Scholar
Blackstone, William (1765–1769) Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, Glenn (1996) Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Care, Henry (1719) English Liberties, or the Free-born Subject's Inheritance, 4th edn.London: Arthur Bettesworth and John Hooke.Google Scholar
Chambers, Robert (1986) A Course of Lectures on the English Law, 2 vols, ed. Curley, Thomas M.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coke, Edward (1794) The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, or a Commentary upon Littleton. London: E. & R. Brooke.Google Scholar
Coke, Edward (1797) The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England. London: E. & R. Brooke.Google Scholar
Comyns, John (1762) A Digest of the Laws of England, 5 vols. London: John Knapton, Thomas Longman and Robert Horsfield.Google Scholar
Craig, Paul (1997) ‘Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law: An Analytical Framework’, Public Law: 467–87.Google Scholar
Dicey, Albert Venn (1959) Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th edn.London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1985) A Matter of Principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Matthew (1713) The History and Analysis of the Common Law of England. London: J. Walthoe.Google Scholar
Hale, Matthew (1986) The Prerogatives of the King, ed. Yale, David E. C.. London: Selden Society.Google Scholar
Halliday, Paul D. and White, G. Edward (2008) ‘The Suspension Clause: English Text, Imperial Contexts, and American Plantations’, Virginia Law Review 94: 575–714.Google Scholar
Johnson, Robert C., Keeler, Mary Frear, Cole, Maija Jansson and Bidwell, William B. (eds) (1977) Commons Debates 1628, 3 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lobban, Michael (2007) A History of the Philosophy of Law in the Common Law World (vol. 8 of Enrico, Pattaro (ed.), A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence) Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Mcilwain, Charles Howard (ed.) (1918) The Political Works of James I. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rolle, Henry (1668) Un Abridgment des plusieurs Cases et Resolutions del Common Ley. London: A. Crooke et al.Google Scholar