(G. G.)
GYTHIUM,the harbour and arsenal of Sparta, from which it was some 30 m. distant. The town lay at the N.W. extremity of the Laconian Gulf, in a small but fertile plain at the mouth of the Gythius. Its reputed founders were Heracles and Apollo, who frequently appear on its coins: the former of these names may point to the influence of Phoenician traders, who, we know, visited the Laconian shores at a very early period. In classical times it was a community ofperioeci, politically dependent on Sparta, though doubtless with a municipal life of its own. In 455B.C., during the first Peloponnesian War, it was burned by the Athenian admiral Tolmides. In 370B.C.Epaminondas besieged it unsuccessfully for three days. Its fortifications were strengthened by the tyrant Nabis, but in 195B.C.it was invested and taken by Titus and Lucius Quintius Flamininus, and, though recovered by Nabis two or three years later, was recaptured immediately after his murder (192B.C.) by Philopoemen and Aulus Atilius and remained in the Achaean League until its dissolution in 146B.C.Subsequently it formed the most important of the Eleutherolaconian towns, a group of twenty-four, later eighteen, communities leagued together to maintain their autonomy against Sparta and declared free by Augustus. The highest officer of the confederacy was the general (στρατηγός), who was assisted by a treasurer (ταμίας), while the chief magistrates of the several communities bore the title of ephors (ἔφοροι).
Pausanias (iii. 21 f.) has left us a description of the town as it existed in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the agora, the Acropolis, the island of Cranae (Marathonisi) where Paris celebrated his nuptials with Helen, the Migonium or precinct of Aphrodite Migonitis (occupied by the modern town of Marathonisi or Gythium), and the hill Larysium (Koumaro) rising above it. The numerous remains extant, of which the theatre and the buildings partially submerged by the sea are the most noteworthy, all belong to the Roman period.
The modern town is a busy and flourishing port with a good harbour protected by Cranae, now connected by a mole with the mainland: it is the capital of the prefecture (νομός) ofΛακωνικήwith a population in 1907 of 61,522.
See G. Weber,De Gytheo et Lacedaemoniorum rebus navalibus(Heidelberg, 1833); W. M. Leake,Travels in the Morea, i. 244 foll.; E. Curtius,Peloponnesos, ii. 267 foll. Inscriptions: Le Bas-Foucart,Voyage archéologique, ii. Nos. 238-248 f.; Collitz-Bechtel,Sammlung d. griech. Dialekt-Inschriften, iii. Nos. 4562-4573;British School Annual, x. 179 foll. Excavations:Ἀ. Σκιᾶς, Πρακτικὰ τῆς Ἀρχ. Ἑταιρείας, 1891, 69 foll.
See G. Weber,De Gytheo et Lacedaemoniorum rebus navalibus(Heidelberg, 1833); W. M. Leake,Travels in the Morea, i. 244 foll.; E. Curtius,Peloponnesos, ii. 267 foll. Inscriptions: Le Bas-Foucart,Voyage archéologique, ii. Nos. 238-248 f.; Collitz-Bechtel,Sammlung d. griech. Dialekt-Inschriften, iii. Nos. 4562-4573;British School Annual, x. 179 foll. Excavations:Ἀ. Σκιᾶς, Πρακτικὰ τῆς Ἀρχ. Ἑταιρείας, 1891, 69 foll.
(M. N. T.)
GYULA-FEHÉRVÁR(Ger.Karlsburg), a town of Hungary, in Transylvania, in the county of Alsó-Feliér, 73 m. S. of Kolozsvár by rail. Pop. (1900) 11,507. It is situated on the right bank of the Maros, on the outskirts of the Transylvanian Erzgebirge or Ore Mountains, and consists of the upper town, or citadel, and the lower town. Gyula-Fehérvár is the seat of a Roman Catholic bishop, and has a fine Roman Catholic cathedral, built in the 11th century in Romanesque style, and rebuilt in 1443 by John Hunyady in Gothic style. It contains among other tombs that of John Hunyady. Near the cathedral is the episcopal palace, and in the same part of the town is the Batthyaneum, founded by Bishop Count Batthyány in 1794. It contains a valuable library with many incunabula and old manuscripts, amongst which is one of theNibelungenlied, an astronomical observatory, a collection of antiquities, and a mineral collection. Gyula-Fehérvár carries on an active trade in cereals, wine and cattle.
Gyula-Fehérvár occupies the site of the Roman colonyApulum. Many Roman relics found here, and in the vicinity, are preserved in the museum of the town. The bishopric was founded in the 11th century by King Ladislaus I. (1078-1095). In the 16th century, when Transylvania separated from Hungary, the town became the residence of the Transylvanian princes. From this period dates the castle, and also the buildings of the university, founded by Gabriel Bethlen, and now used as barracks. After the reversion of Transylvania in 1713 to the Habsburg monarchy the actual strong fortress was built in 1716-1735 by the emperor Charles VI., whence the German name of the town.
HThe eighth symbol in the Phoenician alphabet, as in its descendants, has altered less in the course of ages than most alphabetic symbols. From the beginning of Phoenician records it has consisted of two uprights connected by transverse bars, at first either two or three in number. The uprights are rarely perpendicular and the cross bars are not so precisely arranged as they are in early Greek and Latin inscriptions. In these the symbol takes the form of two rectanglesout of which the ordinarydevelops by the omission of the cross bars at top and bottom. It is very exceptional for this letter to have more than three cross bars, though as many as five are occasionally found in N.W. Greece. Within the same inscription the appearance of the letter often varies considerably as regards the space between and the length of the uprights. When only one bar is found it regularly crosses the uprights about the middle. In a few cases the rectangle is closed at top and bottom but has no middle cross bar. The Phoenician name for the letter was Heth (Hēt). According to Semitic scholars it had two values, (1) a glottal spirant, a very strongh, (2) an unvoiced velar spirant like the Germanchinach. The Greeks borrowed it with the value of the ordinary aspirate and with the nameἧτα. Very early in their history, however, most of the Greeks of Asia Minor lost the aspirate altogether, and having then no further use for the symbol with this value they adopted it to represent the longe-sound, which was not originally distinguished by a different symbol from the short sound (see). With this value its name has always beenἧταin Greek. The alphabet of the Asiatic Greeks was gradually adopted elsewhere. In official documents at Athens H represented the rough breathing or aspirate ‘ till 403B.C.; henceforth it was used for η. The Western Greeks, however, from whom the Romans obtained their alphabet, retained their aspirate longer than those of Asia Minor, and hence the symbol came to the Romans with the value not of a long vowel but of the aspirate, which it still preserves. The Greek aspirate was itself the first or left-hand half of this letter, while the smooth breathing ’ was the right-hand portion. At Tarentumis found forin inscriptions. The Roman aspirate was, however, a very slight sound which in some words where it was etymologically correct disappeared at an early date. Thus the cognate words of kindred languages show that the Lat.anser“goose” ought to begin withh, but nowhere is it so found. In none of the Romance languages is there any trace of initial or medialh, which shows that vulgar Latin had ceased to have the aspirate by 240B.C.The Roman grammarians were guided to its presence by the Sabine forms wherefoccurred; as the Sabines saidfasena(sand), it was recognised that the Roman form ought to beharena, and so forhaedus(goat),hordeum(barley), &c. Between vowelshwas lost very early, forne-hemo(no man) is throughout the literaturenēmo,bi-himus(two winters old)bīmus. In the Ciceronian age greater attention was paid to reproducing the Greek aspirates in borrowed words, and this led to absurd mistakes in Latin words, mistakes which were satirized by Catullus in his epigram (84) upon Arrius, who saidchommodaforcommodaandhinsidiasforinsidias. In Umbrianhwas often lost, and also used without etymological value to mark length, as incomohota(= Lat.commota), a practice to which there are some doubtful parallels in Latin.
In English the history ofhis very similar to that in Latin. While the parts above the glottis are in position to produce a vowel, an aspirate is produced without vibration of the vocal chords, sometimes, like the pronunciation of Arrius, with considerable effort as a reaction against the tendency to “drop the h’s.” Thoughhsurvives in Scotland, Ireland and America as well as in the speech of cultivated persons, the sound in most of the vulgar dialects is entirely lost. Where it is not ordinarily lost, it disappears in unaccented syllables, as “Give it ’im” and the like. Where it is lost, conscious attempts to restore it on the part of uneducated speakers lead to absurd misplacements ofhand to its restoration in Romance words when it never was pronounced, ashumble(now recognized as standard English),humourand evenhonour.
(P. Gi.)
HAAG, CARL(1820- ), a naturalized British painter, court painter to the duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, was born in Bavaria, and was trained in the academies at Nuremburg and Munich. He practised first as an illustrator and as a painter, in oil, of portraits and architectural subjects; but after he settled in England, in 1847, he devoted himself to water colours, and was elected associate of the Royal Society of Painters in Water Colours in 1850 and member in 1853. He travelled much, especially in the East, and made a considerable reputation by his firmly drawn and carefully elaborated paintings of Eastern subjects. Towards the end of his professional career Carl Haag quitted England and returned to Germany.
SeeA History of the “Old Water-Colour” Society, now the Royal Society of Painters in Water Colours, by John Lewis Roget (2 vols., London, 1891).
SeeA History of the “Old Water-Colour” Society, now the Royal Society of Painters in Water Colours, by John Lewis Roget (2 vols., London, 1891).
HAAKON(Old NorseHákon), the name of several kings of Norway, of whom the most important are the following:—
Haakon I., surnamed “the Good” (d. 961), was the youngest son of Harald Haarfager. He was fostered by King Aethelstan of England, who brought him up in the Christian religion, and on the news of his father’s death in 933 provided him with ships and men for an expedition against his half-brother Erik, who had been proclaimed king. On his arrival in Norway Haakon gained the support of the landowners by promising to give up the rights of taxation claimed by his father over inherited real property. Erik fled, and was killed a few years later in England. His sons allied themselves with the Danes, but were invariably defeated by Haakon, who was successful in everything he undertook except in his attempt to introduce Christianity, which aroused an opposition he did not feel strong enough to face. He was killed at the battle of Fitje in 961, after a final victory over Erik’s sons. So entirely did even his immediate circle ignore his religion that a court skald composed a poem on his death representing his welcome by the heathen gods into Valhalla.
Haakon IV., surnamed “the Old” (1204-1263), was declared to be the son of Haakon III., who died shortly before the former’s birth in 1204. A year later the child was placed under the protection of King Inge, after whose death in 1217 he was chosen king; though until 1223 the church refused to recognize him, on the ground of illegitimacy, and the Pope’s dispensation for his coronation was not gained until much later. In the earlier part of his reign much of the royal power was in the hands of Earl Skule, who intrigued against the king until 1239, when he proceeded to open hostility and was put to death. From this time onward Haakon’s reign was marked by more peace and prosperity than Norway had known for many years, until in 1263 a dispute with the Scottish king concerning the Hebrides, a Norwegian possession, induced Haakon to undertake an expedition to the west of Scotland. A division of his army seems to have repulsed a large Scottish force at Largs (though the later Scottish accounts claim this battle as a victory), and, having won back the Norwegian possessions in Scotland, Haakon was wintering in the Orkneys, when he was taken ill and died on the 15th of December 1263. A great part of his fleet had been scattered and destroyed by storms. The most important event in his reign was the voluntary submission of the Icelandic commonwealth. Worn out by internal strife fostered by Haakon’s emissaries, the Icelandic chiefs acknowledged the Norwegian king as overlord in 1262. Their example was followed by the colony of Greenland.
Haakon VII.(1872- ), the second son of Frederick VIII., king of Denmark, was born on the 3rd of August 1872, and was usually known as Prince Charles of Denmark. When in 1905 Norway decided to separate herself from Sweden the Norwegiansoffered their crown to Charles, who accepted it and took the name of Haakon VII., being crowned at Trondhjem in June 1906. The king married Maud, youngest daughter of Edward VII., king of Great Britain, their son, Prince Olav, being born in 1903.
HAARLEM,a town of Holland in the province of North Holland, on the Spaarne, having a junction station 11 m. by rail W. of Amsterdam. It is connected by electric and steam tramways with Zandvoort, Leiden, Amsterdam and Alkmaar. Pop. (1900) 65,189. Haarlem is the seat of the governor of the province of North Holland, and of a Roman Catholic and a Jansenist bishopric. In appearance it is a typical Dutch town, with numerous narrow canals and quaintly gabled houses. Of the ancient city gates the Spaarnewouder or Amsterdam gate alone remains. Gardens and promenades have taken the place of the old ramparts, and on the south the city is bounded by the Frederiks and the Flora parks, between which runs the fine avenue called the Dreef, leading to the Haarlemmer Hout or wood. In the Frederiks Park is a pump-room supplied with a powerful chalybeate water from a spring, the Wilhelminabron, in the Haarlemmer Polder not far distant, and in connexion with this there is an orthopaedic institution adjoining. In the great market place in the centre of the city are gathered together the larger number of the most interesting buildings, including the quaint old Fleshers’ Hall, built by Lieven de Key in 1603, and now containing the archives; the town hall; the old Stadsdoelen, where the burgesses met in arms; the Groote Kerk, or Great Church; and the statue erected in 1856 to Laurenz Janszoon Koster, the printer. The Great Church, dedicated to St Bavo, with a lofty tower (255 ft.), is one of the most famous in Holland, and dates from the end of the 15th and the beginning of the 16th centuries. Its great length (460 ft.) and the height and steepness of its vaulted cedar-wood roof (1538) are very impressive. The choir-stalls and screen (1510) are finely carved, and of further interest are the ancient pulpit sounding-board (1432), some old stained glass, and the small models of ships, copies dating from 1638 of yet earlier models originally presented by the Dutch-Swedish Trading Company. The church organ was long considered the largest and finest in existence. It was constructed by Christian Müller in 1738, and has 4 keyboards, 64 registers and 5000 pipes, the largest of which is 15 in. in diameter and 32 ft. long. Among the monuments in the church are those of the poet Willem Bilderdyk (d. 1831) and the engineer Frederik Willem Conrad (d. 1808), who designed the sea-sluices at Katwyk. In the belfry are thedamiaatjes, small bells presented to the town, according to tradition, by William I., count of Holland (d. 1222), the crusader. The town hall was originally a palace of the counts of Holland, begun in the 12th century, and some old 13th-century beams still remain; but the building was remodelled in the beginning of the 17th century. It contains a collection of antiquities (including some beautiful goblets) and a picture gallery which, though small, is celebrated for its fine collection of paintings by Frans Hals. The town library contains severalincunabulaand an interesting collection of early Dutch literature. At the head of the scientific institutions of Haarlem may be placed the Dutch Society of Sciences (Hollandsche Maatschappij van Wetenschappen), founded in 1752, which possesses valuable collections in botany, natural history and geology. Teyler’s Stichting (i.e.foundation), enlarged in modern times, was instituted by the will of Pieter Teyler van der Hulst (d. 1778), a wealthy merchant, for the study of theology, natural science and art, and has lecture-theatres, a large library, and a museum containing a physical and a geological cabinet, as well as a collection of paintings, including many modern pictures, and a valuable collection of drawings and engravings by old masters. The Dutch Society for the Promotion of Industry (Nederlaandsche Maatschappij ter Bevordering van Nijverheid), founded in 1777, has its seat in the Pavilion Welgelegen, a villa on the south side of the Frederiks Park, built by the Amsterdam banker John Hope in 1778, and afterwards acquired by Louis Bonaparte, king of Holland. The colonial museum and the museum of industrial art were established in this villa by the society in 1871 and 1877 respectively. Besides these there are a museum of ecclesiastical antiquities, chiefly relating to the bishopric of Haarlem; the old weigh-house (1598) and the orphanage for girls (1608), originally an almshouse for old men, both built by the architect Lieven de Key of Ghent.
The staple industries of Haarlem have been greatly modified in the course of time. Cloth weaving and brewing, which once flourished exceedingly, declined in the beginning of the 16th century. A century later, silk, lace and damask weaving were introduced by French refugees, and became very important industries. But about the close of the 18th century this remarkable prosperity had also come to an end, and it was not till after the Belgian revolution of 1830-1831 that Haarlem began to develop the manufactures in which it is now chiefly engaged. Cotton manufacture, dyeing, printing, bleaching, brewing, type-founding, and the manufacture of tram and railway carriages are among the more important of its industries. One of the printing establishments has the reputation of being the oldest in the Netherlands, and publishes the oldest Dutch paper,De Opragte Haarlemmer Courant. Market-gardening, especially horticulture, is extensively practised in the vicinity, so that Haarlem is the seat of a large trade in Dutch bulbs, especially hyacinths, tulips, fritillaries, spiraeas and japonicas.
Haarlem, which was a prosperous place in the middle of the 12th century, received its first town charter from William II., count of Holland and king of the Romans, in 1245. It played a considerable part in the wars of Holland with the Frisians. In 1492 it was captured by the insurgent peasants of North Holland, was re-taken by the duke of Saxony, the imperial stadholder, and deprived of its privileges. In 1572 Haarlem joined the revolt of the Netherlands against Spain, but on the 13th of July 1573, after a seven months’ siege, was forced to surrender to Alva’s son Frederick, who exacted terrible vengeance. In 1577 it was again captured by William of Orange and permanently incorporated in the United Netherlands.
See Karl Hegel,Städte und Gilden(Leipzig, 1891); Allan,Geschiedenis en beschrijving van Haarlem(Haarlem, 1871-1888).
See Karl Hegel,Städte und Gilden(Leipzig, 1891); Allan,Geschiedenis en beschrijving van Haarlem(Haarlem, 1871-1888).
HAARLEM LAKE(DutchHarlemmer Meer), a commune of the province of North Holland, constituted by the law of the 16th of July 1855. It has an area of about 46,000 acres, and its population increased from 7237 in 1860 to 16,621 in 1900. As its name indicates, the commune was formerly a lake, which is said to have been a relic of a northern arm of the Rhine which passed through the district in the time of the Romans. In 1531 the Haarlemmer Meer had an area of 6430 acres, and in its vicinity were three smaller sheets of water—the Leidsche Meer or Leiden Lake, the Spiering Meer, and the Oude Meer or Old Lake, with a united area of about 7600 acres. The four lakes were formed into one by successive inundations, whole villages disappearing in the process, and by 1647 the new Haarlem Lake had an area of about 37,000 acres, which a century later had increased to over 42,000 acres. As early as 1643 Jan Adriaanszoon Leeghwater proposed to endike and drain the lake; and similar schemes, among which those of Nikolaas Samuel Cruquius in 1742 and of Baron van Lijnden van Hemmen in 1820 are worthy of special mention, were brought forward from time to time. But it was not till a furious hurricane in November 1836 drove the waters as far as the gates of Amsterdam, and another on Christmas Day sent them in the opposite direction to submerge the streets of Leiden, that the mind of the nation was seriously turned to the matter. In August 1837 the king appointed a royal commission of inquiry; the scheme proposed by the commission received the sanction of the Second Chamber in March 1839, and in the following May the work was begun. A canal was first dug round the lake for the reception of the water and the accommodation of the great traffic which had previously been carried on. This canal was 38 m. in length, 123-146 ft. wide, and 8 ft. deep, and the earth which was taken out of it was used to build a dike from 30 to 54 yds. broad containing the lake. The area enclosed by the canal was rather more than 70 sq. m., and the average depth of the lake 13 ft. 1½ in., and as the water had no natural outfall it was calculated that probably 1000 million tons would have to be raised by mechanical means.This amount was 200 million tons in excess of that actually discharged. Pumping by steam-engines began in 1848, and the lake was dry by the 1st of July 1852. At the first sale of the highest lands along the banks on the 16th of August 1853, about £28 per acre was paid; but the average price afterwards was less. The whole area of 42,096 acres recovered from the waters brought in 9,400,000 florins, or about £780,000, exactly covering the cost of the enterprise; so that the actual cost to the nation was only the amount of the interest on the capital, or about £368,000. The soil is of various kinds, loam, clay, sand and peat; most of it is sufficiently fertile, though in the lower portions there are barren patches where the scanty vegetation is covered with an ochreous deposit. Mineral springs occur containing a very high percentage (3.245 grams per litre) of common salt; and in 1893 a company was formed for working them. Corn, seeds, cattle, butter and cheese are the principal produce. The roads which traverse the commune are bordered by pleasant-looking farm-houses built after the various styles of Holland, Friesland or Brabant. Hoofddorp, Venneperdorp or Nieuw Vennep, Abbenes and the vicinities of the pumping-stations are the spots where the population has clustered most thickly. The first church was built in 1855; in 1877 there were seven. In 1854 the city of Leiden laid claim to the possession of the new territory, but the courts decided in favour of the nation.
HAASE, FRIEDRICH(1827- ), German actor, was born on the 1st of November 1827, in Berlin, the son of a valet to King Frederick William IV., who became his godfather. He was educated for the stage under Ludwig Tieck and made his first appearance in 1846 in Weimar, afterwards acting at Prague (1849-1851) and Karlsruhe (1852-1855). From 1860 to 1866 he played in St Petersburg, then was manager of the court theatre in Coburg, and in 1869 (and again in 1882-1883) visited the United States. He was manager of the Stadt Theater in Leipzig from 1870 to 1876, when he removed to Berlin, where he devoted his energies to the foundation and management of the Deutsches Theater. He finally retired from the stage in 1898. Haase’s aristocratic appearance and elegant manner fitted him specially to play high comedy parts. His chief rôles were those of Rocheferrier in thePartie Piquet; Richelieu; Savigny inDer feiner Diplomat, and der Fürst inDer geheime Agent. He is the author ofUngeschminkte Briefe and Was ich erlebte 1846-1898(Berlin, 1898).
See Simon,Friedrich Haase(Berlin, 1898).
See Simon,Friedrich Haase(Berlin, 1898).
HAASE, FRIEDRICH GOTTLOB(1808-1867), German classical scholar, was born at Magdeburg on the 4th of January 1808. Having studied at Halle, Greifswald and Berlin, he obtained in 1834 an appointment at Schulpforta, from which he was suspended and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for identifying himself with theBurschenschaften(students’ associations). Having been released after serving one year of his sentence, he visited Paris, and on his return in 1840 he was appointed professor at Breslau, where he remained till his death on the 16th of August 1867. He was undoubtedly one of the most successful teachers of his day in Germany, and exercised great influence upon all his pupils.
He edited several classic authors: Xenophon (Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτεία, 1833); Thucydides (1840); Velleius Paterculus (1858); Seneca the philosopher (2nd ed., 1872, not yet superseded); and Tacitus (1855), the introduction to which is a masterpiece of Latinity. HisVorlesungen über lateinische Sprachwissenschaftwas published after his death by F. A. Eckstein and H. Peter (1874-1880). See C Bursian,Geschichte der klassischen Philologie in Deutschland(1883); G. Fickert,Friderici Haasii memoria(1868), with a list of works; T. Oelsner inRübezahl(Schlesische Provinzialblätter), vii. Heft 3 (Breslau, 1868).
He edited several classic authors: Xenophon (Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτεία, 1833); Thucydides (1840); Velleius Paterculus (1858); Seneca the philosopher (2nd ed., 1872, not yet superseded); and Tacitus (1855), the introduction to which is a masterpiece of Latinity. HisVorlesungen über lateinische Sprachwissenschaftwas published after his death by F. A. Eckstein and H. Peter (1874-1880). See C Bursian,Geschichte der klassischen Philologie in Deutschland(1883); G. Fickert,Friderici Haasii memoria(1868), with a list of works; T. Oelsner inRübezahl(Schlesische Provinzialblätter), vii. Heft 3 (Breslau, 1868).
HAAST, SIR JOHANN FRANZ JULIUS VON(1824-1887), German and British geologist, was born at Bonn on the 1st of May 1824. He received his early education partly in that town and partly in Cologne, and then entered the university at Bonn, where he made a special study of geology and mineralogy. In 1858 he started for New Zealand to report on the suitability of the colony for German emigrants. He then became acquainted with Dr von Hochstetter, and rendered assistance to him in the preliminary geological survey which von Hochstetter had undertaken. Afterwards Dr Haast accepted offers from the governments of Nelson and Canterbury to investigate the geology of those districts, and the results of his detailed labours greatly enriched our knowledge with regard to the rocky structure, the glacial phenomena and the economic products. He discovered gold and coal in Nelson, and he carried on important researches with reference to the occurrence ofDinornisand other extinct wingless birds (Moas). HisGeology of the Provinces of Canterbury and Westland, N.Z., was published in 1879. He was the founder of the Canterbury museum at Christchurch, of which he became director, and which he endeavoured to render the finest collection in the southern hemisphere. He was surveyor-general of Canterbury from 1861 to 1871, and professor of geology at Canterbury College. He was elected F.R.S. in 1867; and he was knighted for his services at the time of the colonial exhibition in London in 1887. He died at Wellington, N.Z., on the 15th of August 1887.
HABABS(Az-Hibbehs), a nomadic pastoral people of Hamitic stock, living in the coast region north-west of Massawa. Physically they are Beja, by language and traditions Abyssinians. They were Christians until the 19th century, but are now Mahommedans. Their sole wealth consists in cattle.
HABAKKUK,the name borne by the eighth book of the Old Testament “Minor Prophets.” It occurs twice in the book itself (i. 1, iii. 1) in titles, but nowhere else in the Old Testament. The meaning of the name is uncertain. If Hebrew, it might be derived from the rootחבק(to embrace) as an intensive term of affection. It has also been connected more plausibly with an Assyrian plant name,ḫambaḱūḱu(Delitzsch,Assyrisches Handwörterbuch, p. 281). The Septuagint hasἈμβακούμ. Of the person designated, no more is known than may be inferred from the writing which bears his name. Various legends are connected with him, of which the best known is given in the Apocryphal story of “Bel and the Dragon” (v. 33-39); but none of these has any historic value.1
The book itself falls into three obvious parts, viz. (1) a dialogue between the prophet and God (i. 2-ii. 4); (2) a series of five woes pronounced on wickedness (ii. 5-ii. 20); (3) a poem describing the triumphant manifestation of God (iii.). There is considerable difficulty in regard to the interpretation of (1), on which that of (2) will turn; while (3) forms an independent section, to be considered separately.
In the dialogue, the prophet cries to God against continued violence and injustice, though it is not clear whether this is donewithinortoIsrael (i. 2-4). The divine answer declares that God raises up the Chaldaeans, whose formidable resources are invincible (i. 5-11). The prophet thereupon calls God’s attention to the tyranny which He apparently allows to triumph, and declares his purpose to wait till an answer is given to his complaint (i. 12-ii. 2). God answers by demanding patience, and by declaring that the righteous shall live by his faithfulness (ii. 3-4).
The interpretation of this dialogue which first suggests itself is that the prophet is referring to wickednesswithinthe nation, which is to be punished by the Chaldaeans as a divine instrument; in the process, the tyranny of the instrument itself calls for punishment, which the prophet is bidden to await in patient fidelity. On this view of the dialogue, the subsequent woes will be pronounced against the Chaldaeans, and the date assigned to the prophecy will be about 600B.C.,i.e.soon after the battle of Carchemish (605B.C.), when the Chaldaean victory over Egypt inaugurated a period of Chaldaean supremacy which lasted till the Chaldaeans themselves were overthrown by Cyrus in 538B.C.Grave objections, however, confront this interpretation, as is admitted even by such recent defenders of it as Davidson and Driver. Is it likely that a prophet would begin a complaint against Chaldaean tyranny (admittedly central in the prophecy) by complaining of that wickedness of his fellow-countrymen which seems partly to justify it? Are not the terms of reference ini. 2 f. and 1. 12 f. too similar for the supposition that two distinct, even contradictory, complaints are being made (cf. “wicked” and “righteous” in i. 4 and i. 13, interchanged in regard to Israel, on above theory)? And if i. 5-11 is a genuineprophecyof the raising up of the Chaldaeans, whence comes that long experience of their rule required to explain thedetaileddenunciation of their tyranny? To meet the last objection, Davidson supposes i. 5-11 to be really a reference to the past, prophetic in form only, and brings down the whole section to a later period of Chaldaean rule, “hardly, one would think, before the deportation of the people under Jehoiachin in 597” (p. 49). Driver prefers to bisect the dialogue by supposing i. 2-11 to be written at an earlier period than i. 12 f. (p. 57). The other objections, however, remain, and have provoked a variety of theories from Old Testament scholars, of which three call for special notice. (1) The first of these, represented by Giesebrecht,2Nowack and Wellhausen, refers i. 2-4 to Chaldaean oppression of Israel, the same subject being continued in i. 12 f. Obviously, the reference to the Chaldaeans as a divine instrument could not then stand in its present place, and it is accordingly regarded as a misplaced earlier prophecy. This is the minimum of critical procedure required to do justice to the facts. (2) Budde, followed by Cornill, also regards i. 2-4 as referring to the oppression of Israel by a foreign tyrant, whom, however, he holds to be Assyria. He also removes i. 5-11 from its present place, but makes it part of the divine answer, following ii. 4. On this view, the Chaldaeans are the divine instrument for punishing the tyranny of the Assyrians, to whom the following woes will therefore refer. The date would fall between Josiah’s reformation (621) and his death (609). This is a plausible and even attractive theory; its weakness seems to lie in the absence of any positive evidence in the prophecy itself, as is illustrated by the fact that even G. A. Smith, who follows it, suggests “Egypt from 608-605” as an alternative to Assyria (p. 124). (3) Marti (1904) abandons the attempt to explain the prophecy as a unity, and analyses it into three elements, viz. (a) The original prophecy by Habakkuk, consisting of i. 5-10, 14 f., belonging to the year 605, and representing the emergent power of the Chaldaeans as a divine scourge of the faithless people; (b) Woes against the Chaldaeans, presupposing not only tyrannous rule over many peoples, but the beginning of their decline and fall, and therefore of date about 540B.C.(ii. 5-19); (c) A psalm of post-exilic origin, whose fragments, i. 2-4, 12 a, 13, ii. 1-4, have been incorporated into the present text from the margins on which they were written, its subject being the suffering of the righteous. Each of these three theories3encounters difficulties of detail; none can be said to have secured a dominant position. The great variety of views amongst competent critics is significant of the difficulty of the problem, which can hardly be regarded as yet solved; this divergence of opinion perhaps points to the impossibility of maintaining the unity of chs. i. and ii., and throws the balance of probability towards some such analysis as that of Marti, which is therefore accepted in the present article.
In regard to the poem which forms the third and closing chapter of the present book of Habakkuk, there is much more general agreement. Its most striking characteristic lies in the superscription (“A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, set to Shigionoth”), the subscription (“For the chief musician, on my stringed instruments”), and the insertion of the musical term “Selah” in three places (v. 3, 9, 13). These liturgical notes make extremely probable the supposition that the poem has been taken from some collection like that of our present book of Psalms, probably on the ground of the authorship asserted by the superscription there attached to it. It cannot, however, be said that the poem itself supports this assertion, which carries no more intrinsic weight than the Davidic titles of the Psalms. The poem begins with a prayer that God will renew the historic manifestation of the exodus, which inaugurated the national history and faith; a thunderstorm moving up from the south is then described, in which God is revealed (3-7); it is asked whether this manifestation, whose course is further described, is against nature only (8-11); the answer is given that it is for the salvation of Israel against its wicked foes (12-15); the poet describes the effect in terror upon himself (16) and declares his confidence in God, even in utter agricultural adversity (17-19). As Wellhausen says (p. 171): “The poet appears to believe that in the very act of describing enthusiastically the ancient deed of deliverance, he brings home to us the new; we are left sometimes in doubt whether he speaks of the past to suggest the new by analogy, or whether he is concerned directly with the future, and simply paints it with the colours of the past.” In any case, there is nothing in this fine poem to connect it with the conception of the Chaldaeans as a divine instrument. It is the nation that speaks through the poet (cf. v. 14), but at what period of its post-exilic history we have no means of inferring.
Our estimate of the theological teaching of this book will naturally be influenced by the particular critical theory which is adopted. The reduction of the book to four originally independent sections requires that the point of each be stated separately. When this is done, it will, however, be found that there is a broad unity of subject, and of natural development in its treatment, such as to some extent justifies the instinct or the judgment of those who were instrumental in effecting the combination of the separate parts. (1) The poem (iii.), though possibly latest in date,4claims first consideration, because it avowedly moves in the circle of primitive ideas, and supplicates a divine intervention, a direct and immediate manifestation of the transcendent God. He is conceived as controlling or overcoming the forces of nature; and though an earlier mythology has supplied some of the ideas, yet, as with the opening chapters of Genesis, they are transfigured by the moral purpose which animates them, the purpose to subdue all things that could frustrate the destiny of God’s anointed (v. 13). The closing verses strike that deep note of absolute dependence on God, which is the glory of the religion of the Old Testament and its chief contribution to the spirit of the Gospels. (2) The prophecy of the Chaldaeans as the instruments of the divine purpose involves a different, yet related, conception of the divine providence. The philosophy of history, by which Hebrew prophets could read a deep moral significance into national disaster and turn the flank of resistless attack, became one of the most important elements in the nation’s faith. If the world-powers were hard as flint in their dealings with Israel, the people of God were steeled to such moral endurance that each clash of their successive onsets kindled some new flame of devotion. Through the Chaldaeans God worked a work which required centuries of life and literature to disclose its fulness (i. 5). (3) When we turn from this view of the Chaldaeans to the denunciation of their tyranny in “taunt songs” (ii. 5-20), we have simply a practical application of the doctrine of divine government. God being what He is, at once moral and all-powerful, the immoral life is doomed to overthrow, whether the immorality consist in grasping rapacity, proud self-aggrandizement, cruel exaction, exulting triumph or senseless idolatry. (4) Yet, because the doom so often tarries, there arises the problem of the suffering of the innocent and the upright. How can God look down with tolerance that seems favour on so much that conflicts with His declared will and character? This is the great problem of Israel, finding its supreme expression for all time in the book of Job (q.v.). In that book the solution of the problem of innocent suffering lies hidden from the sufferer, even to the end, for he is not admitted with the reader to the secret of the prologue; it is the practical solution of faithfulness resting on faith which is offered to us. So here, with the principle of ii. 4, “the righteous shall live by his faithfulness.” The different application of these words in the New Testament to “faith”is well known (Rom. i. 17; Gal. iii. 11; Heb. x. 38) though the difference is apt to be exaggerated by those who forget how much of the element ofאמונה: lies in Paul’s conception ofπίστις. In G. A. Smith’s words, “as Paul’s adaptation, ‘the just shall live by faith,’ has become the motto of evangelical Christianity, so we may say that Habakkuk’s original of it has been the motto and the fame of Judaism: ‘the righteous shall live by his faithfulness.’”
The Hebrew text of this impressive and varied book is unfortunately corrupt in many places; even so cautious a critic as Driver accepts or favourably notices eighteen textual emendations in the three chapters, and suspects the text in at least seven other cases. For the interpretation of the book in detail, the English reader will find Driver’s commentary (1906) the most useful.References to earlier literature will be found in the following noteworthy studies of recent date: Davidson, “Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah,” inCambridge Bible(1896); Nowack,Die kleinen Propheten(Hdkr.) (1897); Wellhausen,Die kleinen Propheten3(1898); G. A. Smith, “The Book of the Twelve Prophets,” inThe Expositor’s Bible, vol. ii. (1898); Driver, article “Habakkuk” in Hastings’Dictionary of the Bible, vol. ii. pp. 269-272 (1900); Budde, article “Habakkuk” inEncy. Biblica, vol. ii., c. 1921-1928 (1901); Stevenson, “The Interpretation of Habakkuk,” inThe Expositor(1902), pp. 388-401; Peake,The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament(1904), pp. 4-11 and app. A, “Recent Criticism of Habakkuk”; Marti,Dodekapropheton(K. H. C.) (1904); Driver, “Minor Prophets,” vol. ii., inCentury Bible(1906); Duhm,Das Buch Habakkuk(Text, Übersetzung und Efklärung), 1906 (regards the book as a unity belonging to the time of Alexander the Great). Max L. Margolis discusses the anonymous Greek version of Habakkuk iii. in a volume ofOld Test. and Semitic Studies: in Memory of William Rainey Harper(Chicago, 1908).
The Hebrew text of this impressive and varied book is unfortunately corrupt in many places; even so cautious a critic as Driver accepts or favourably notices eighteen textual emendations in the three chapters, and suspects the text in at least seven other cases. For the interpretation of the book in detail, the English reader will find Driver’s commentary (1906) the most useful.
References to earlier literature will be found in the following noteworthy studies of recent date: Davidson, “Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah,” inCambridge Bible(1896); Nowack,Die kleinen Propheten(Hdkr.) (1897); Wellhausen,Die kleinen Propheten3(1898); G. A. Smith, “The Book of the Twelve Prophets,” inThe Expositor’s Bible, vol. ii. (1898); Driver, article “Habakkuk” in Hastings’Dictionary of the Bible, vol. ii. pp. 269-272 (1900); Budde, article “Habakkuk” inEncy. Biblica, vol. ii., c. 1921-1928 (1901); Stevenson, “The Interpretation of Habakkuk,” inThe Expositor(1902), pp. 388-401; Peake,The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament(1904), pp. 4-11 and app. A, “Recent Criticism of Habakkuk”; Marti,Dodekapropheton(K. H. C.) (1904); Driver, “Minor Prophets,” vol. ii., inCentury Bible(1906); Duhm,Das Buch Habakkuk(Text, Übersetzung und Efklärung), 1906 (regards the book as a unity belonging to the time of Alexander the Great). Max L. Margolis discusses the anonymous Greek version of Habakkuk iii. in a volume ofOld Test. and Semitic Studies: in Memory of William Rainey Harper(Chicago, 1908).
(H. W. R.*)
1These legends are collected in Hastings, D. B. vol. ii. p. 272. He is the watchman of Is. xxi. 6 (cf. Hab. ii. 1); the son of the Shunammite (2 Kings iv. 16); and is miraculously lifted by his hair to carry his own dinner to Daniel in the lions’ den (supra).2Followed by Peake inThe Problem of Suffering, pp. 4 f., 151 f., to whose appendix (A) reference may be made for further details of recent criticism.3For the less probable theories of Rothstein, Lauterburg, Happel and Peiser (amongst others), cf. Marti’sCommentary, pp. 328 f. and 332. Stevenson (The Expositor, 1902) states clearly the difficulties for those who regard ch. i. as a unity. He sees two independent sections, 2-4 + 12-13, and 5-11 + 14-17.4Earlier, however, than Ps. lxxvii. 17-20, which is drawn from it.
1These legends are collected in Hastings, D. B. vol. ii. p. 272. He is the watchman of Is. xxi. 6 (cf. Hab. ii. 1); the son of the Shunammite (2 Kings iv. 16); and is miraculously lifted by his hair to carry his own dinner to Daniel in the lions’ den (supra).
2Followed by Peake inThe Problem of Suffering, pp. 4 f., 151 f., to whose appendix (A) reference may be made for further details of recent criticism.
3For the less probable theories of Rothstein, Lauterburg, Happel and Peiser (amongst others), cf. Marti’sCommentary, pp. 328 f. and 332. Stevenson (The Expositor, 1902) states clearly the difficulties for those who regard ch. i. as a unity. He sees two independent sections, 2-4 + 12-13, and 5-11 + 14-17.
4Earlier, however, than Ps. lxxvii. 17-20, which is drawn from it.
HABDALA(lit. “separation”), a Hebrew term chiefly appropriated to ceremonies at the conclusion of Sabbath and festivals, marking the separation between times sacred and secular. On the Saturday night the ceremony consists of three items: (a) benediction over a cup of wine (common to many other Jewish functions); (b) benediction over a lighted taper, of which possibly the origin is utilitarian, as no light might be kindled on the Sabbath day, but the rite may be symbolical; and (c) benediction over a box of sweet-smelling spices. The origin of the latter has been traced to the bowl of burning spice which in Talmudic times was introduced after each meal. But here too symbolic ideas must be taken into account. Both the light and the spices would readily fit into the conception of the Sabbath “Over-soul” of the mystics.
(I. A.)
HABEAS CORPUS,in English law, a writ issued out of the High Court of Justice commanding the person to whom it is directed to bring the body of a person in his custody before that or some other court for a specified purpose.
There are various forms of the writ, of which the most famous is that known ashabeas corpus ad subjiciendum, the well-established remedy for violation of personal liberty. From the earliest records of the English law no free man could be detained in custody except on a criminal charge or conviction or for a civil debt. That right is expressed in the Great Charter in the words: “Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur aut dissaisietur aut utlagetur, aut exuletur aut aliquo modo destruatur nec super eum ibimus nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae.”1The writ is a remedial mandatory writ of right existing by the common law,i.e.it is one of the extraordinary remedies—such asmandamus,certiorariand prohibitions, which the superior courts may grant. While “of right,” it is not “of course,” and is granted only on application to the High Court or a judge thereof, supported by a sworn statement of facts setting up at least a probable case of illegal confinement. It is addressed to the person in whose custody another is detained, and commands him to bring his prisoner before the court immediately after the receipt of the writ, together with the day and cause of his being taken and detained, to undergo and receive (ad subjiciendum et recipiendum) whatsoever the court awarding the writ “may consider of concerning him in that behalf.”
It is often stated that the writ is founded on the article of the Great Charter already quoted; but there are extant instances of the issue of writs ofhabeas corpusbefore the charter. Other writs having somewhat similar effect were in use at an early date,e.g.the writde odio et atiâ, used as early as the 12th century to prevent imprisonment on vexatious appeals of felony, and the writ of mainprise (de manucaptione), long obsolete if not abolished in England but which it was attempted to use in India so late as 1870. In the ease of imprisonment on accusation of crime the writ issued from the court of king’s bench (or from the chancery), and on its return the court judged of the legality of the imprisonment, and discharged the prisoner or admitted him to bail or remanded him to his former custody according to the result of the examination.
By the time of Charles I. the writ was fully established as the appropriate process for checking illegal imprisonment by inferior courts or by public officials. But it acquired its full and present constitutional importance by legislation.
In Darnel’s case (1627) the judges held that the command of the king was a sufficient answer to a writ ofhabeas 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 (1627, 3 Car. I. c. i.) which, inter alia, recited (s. 5) that, contrary to the Great Charter and the good laws and statutes of the realm, divers of the king’s subjects had of late been imprisoned without any cause shown, and when they were brought up onhabeas corpus ad subjiciendum, and no cause was shown other than the special command of the king signified by the privy council, were nevertheless remanded to prison, and enacted “that no freeman in any such manner as is before mentioned be imprisoned or detained.” The Petition of Right was disregarded in Selden’s case (1629), when it was successfully returned to ahabeas corpusthat Selden and others were committed by the king’s special command “for notable contempts against the king and his government and for stirring up sedition against him.”2This led to legislation in 1640 by which, after abolishing the Star Chamber, the right to ahabeas corpuswas given to test the legality of commitments by command or warrant of the king or the privy council.3
The reign of Charles II. was marked by further progress towards securing the freedom of the subject from wrongful imprisonment. Lord Clarendon was impeached,inter alia, for causing many persons to be imprisoned against law and to be conveyed in custody to places outside England. In 1668 a writ ofhabeas corpuswas issued to test the legality of an imprisonment in Jersey. Though the authority of the courts had been strengthened by the Petition of Right and the act of 1640, it was still rendered insufficient by reason of the insecurity of judicial tenure, the fact that only the chancellor (a political as well as a legal officer) and the court of king’s bench had undoubted right to issue the writ, and the inability or hesitation of the competent judges to issue the writ except during the legal term, which did not cover more than half the year. A series of bills was passed through the Commons between 1668 and 1675, only to be rejected by the other House. In Jenkes’s case (1676) Lord Chancellor Nottingham refused to issue the writ in vacation in a case in which a man had been committed by the king in council for a speech at Guildhall, and could get neither bail nor trial. In 1679, but rather in consequence of Lord Clarendon’s arbitrary proceedings4than of Jenkes’s case, a fresh bill was introduced which passed both Houses (it is said the upper House by the counting of one stout peer as ten) and became the famous Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 (31 Car. II. c. 2). The passing of the act was largely due to the experience and energy of Lord Shaftesbury, after whom it was for some time called. The act, while a most important landmark in the constitutional history of England, in no sense creates any right to personal freedom, but is essentially a procedure act for improving the legal mechanism by means of which that acknowledged right may be enforced.5It declares no principles and defines no rights, but is for practical purposes worth a hundred articles guaranteeing constitutional liberty.6
In the manner characteristic of English legislation the act is limited to the particular grievances immediately in view and is limited to imprisonment for criminal or supposed criminal matters, leaving untouched imprisonment on civil process or by private persons. It recites that great delays have been used by sheriffs and gaolers in making returns of writs ofhabeas corpusdirected to them; and for the prevention thereof, and the more speedy relief of all persons imprisoned for criminal or supposed criminal matters, it enacts in substance as follows: (1) When a writ ofhabeas corpusis 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 imprisonment—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 lawful 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 ahabeas corpusreturnable 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 ahabeas corpusshall have none in vacation. (3) Persons set at large onhabeas corpusshall not be recommitted for the same offence unless by the legal order and process of the court having cognizance 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 day 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 conviction for felony, electing to be transported) shall be sent prisoner to Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, &c., or any place beyond the seas. Stringent penalties are provided for offences against the act. A judge delayinghabeas corpusforfeits £500 to the party aggrieved. Illegal imprisonment beyond seas renders the offender liable in an action by the injured party to treble costs and damages to the extent of not less than £500, besides subjecting him to the penalties ofpraemunireand to other disabilities. “The great rank of those who were likely to offend against this part of the statute was,” says Hallam, “the cause of this unusual severity.” Indeed as early as 1591 the judges had complained of the difficulty of enforcing the writ in the case of imprisonment at the instance of magnates of the realm. The effect of the act was to impose upon the judges under severe sanction the duty of protecting personal liberty in the case of criminal charges and of securing speedy trial upon such charges when legally framed; and the improvement of their tenure of office at the revolution, coupled with the veto put by the Bill of Rights on excessive bail, gave the judicature the independence and authority necessary to enable them to keep the executive within the law and to restrain administrative development of the scope or penalties of the criminal law; and this power of the judiciary to control the executive, coupled with the limitations on the right to set up “act of state” as an excuse for infringing individual liberty is the special characteristic of English constitutional law.
It is to be observed that neither at common law nor under the act of 1679 was the writ the appropriate remedy in the case of a person convicted either on indictment or summarily. It properly applied to persons detained before or without trial or sentence; and for convicted persons the proper remedy was by writs of error orcertiorarito which a writ ofhabeas corpusmight be used as ancillary.
As regards persons imprisoned for debt or on civil process the writ was available at common law to test the legality of the detention: but the practice in these cases is unaffected by the act of 1679, and is of no present interest, since imprisonment on civil process is almost abolished. As regards persons in private custody,e.g.persons notsui jurisdetained by those not entitled to their guardianship or lunatics, or persons kidnapped,habeas corpus ad subjiciendumseems not to have been the ordinary common law remedy. The appropriate writ for such cases was that known asde homine replegiando. The use of this writ in most if not all criminal cases was forbidden in 1553; but it was used in the 17th century in a case of kidnapping (Designy’s case, 1682), and against Lord Grey for abducting his wife’s sister (1682), and in the earl of Banbury’s case to recover his wife (1704). The latest recorded instance of its use is Trebilcock’s case (1736), in which a ward sought to free himself from the custody of his guardian.
Since that date thehabeas corpus ad subjiciendumhas been used in cases of illegal detention in private custody. In 1758 questions arose as to its application to persons in naval or military custody, including pressed men, which led to the introduction of a bill in parliament and to the consultation by the House of Lords of the judges (see Wilmot’sOpinions, p. 77). In the same year the writ was used to release the wife of Earl Ferrers from his custody and maltreatment, and was unsuccessfully applied for by John Wilkes to get back his wife, who was separated from him by mutual agreement. But perhaps the most interesting instances of that period are the case of the negro Somerset (1771), who was released from a claim to hold him as a slave in England: and that of the Hottentot Venus (1810), where an alien woman on exhibition in England was brought before the court by Zachary Macaulay in order to ascertain whether she was detained against her will.
The experience of the 18th century disclosed defects in the procedure for obtaining liberty in cases not covered by the act of 1679. But it was not till 1816 that further legislation was passed for more effectually securing the liberty of the subject. The act of 1816 (56 Geo. III. c. 100), does not touch cases covered by the act of 1679. It enacts (1) that a writ ofhabeas corpusshall be issued in vacation time in favour of a person restrained of his liberty otherwise than for some criminal or supposed criminal matter (except persons imprisoned for debt or by civil process); (2) that though the return to the writ be good and sufficient in law, the judge shall examine into the truth of the facts set forth in such return, and if they appear doubtful the prisoner shall be bailed; (3) that the writ shall run to any port, harbour, road, creek or bay on the coast of England, although not within the body of any county. The last clause was intended to meet doubts on the applicability ofhabeas corpusin cases of illegal detention on board ship, which had been raised owing to a case of detention on a foreign ship in an English port.
It will appear from the foregoing statement that the issue and enforcement of the writ rests on the common law as strengthened by the acts of 1627, 1640, 1679 and 1816, and subject also to the regulations as to procedure contained in theCrown Office Rules, 1906. The effect of the statutes is to keep the courts always open for the issue of the writ. It is available to put an end to all forms of illegal detention in public or private custody. In the case of the Canadian prisoners (1839) it was used to obtain the release of persons sentenced in Canada for participating in the rebellion of 1837, who were being conveyed throughout England in custody on their way to imprisonment in another part of the empire, and it is matter of frequent experience for the courts to review the legality of commitments under the Extradition Acts and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, of fugitives from the justice of a foreign state or parts of the king’s dominions outside the British Islands.
In times of public danger it has occasionally been thought necessary to “suspend” the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 by special and temporary legislation. This was done in 1794 (by an actannually renewed until 1801) and again in 1817, as to persons arrested and detained by his majesty for conspiring against his person and government. The same course was adopted in Ireland in 1866 during a Fenian rising. It has been the practice to make such acts annual and to follow their expiration by an act of indemnity. In cases where martial law exists the use of the writ isex hypothesisuspended during conditions amounting to a state of war within the realm or the British possession affected (e.g.the Cape Colony and Natal during the South African War), and it would seem that the acts of courts martial during the period are not the subject of review by the ordinary courts. The so-called “suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act” bears a certain similarity to what is called in Europe “suspending the constitutional guarantees” or “proclaiming a state of siege,” but “is not in reality more than suspension of one particular remedy for the protection of personal freedom.”