[22] In this session (Feb. 14) a committee was appointed to inspect the laws, and consider how the king may commit any subject by his immediate warrant, as the law now stands, and report the same to the house, and also how the law now stands touching commitments of persons by the council-table. Ralph supposes (p. 255) that this gave rise to the habeas corpus act, which is certainly not the case. The statute 16 Car. I, c. 10, seems to recognise the legality of commitments by the king's special warrant, or by the privy council, or some, at least, of its members singly; and I do not know whether this, with long usage, is not sufficient to support the controverted authority of the secretary of state. As to the privy council, it is not doubted, I believe, that they may commit. But it has been held, even in the worst of times, that a warrant of commitment under the king's own hand, without seal, or the hand of any secretary, or officer of state, or justice, is bad. 2 Jac. II. B. R. 2 Shower, 484. [23] In the _Parliamentary History_, 845, we find a debate on the petition of one Harrington to the Commons in 1677, who had been committed to close custody by the council. But as his demeanour was alleged to have been disrespectful, and the right of the council to commit was not disputed, and especially as he seems to have been at liberty when the debate took place, no proceedings ensued; though the commitment had not been altogether regular. Ralph (p. 314) comments more severely on the behaviour of the house than was necessary. [24] 31 Car. II. c. 2. [25] The puisne judges of the common pleas granted a habeas corpus, against the opinion of Chief-Justice Vaughan, who denied the court to have that power. Carter's _Reports_, 221. [26] The court of King's Bench directed a habeas corpus to the governor of Jersey, to bring up the body of Overton, a well-known officer of the commonwealth, who had been confined there several years. Siderfin's _Reports_, 386. This was in 1668, after the fall of Clarendon, when a less despotic system was introduced. [27] See the Lords' questions and answers of the judges in _Parl. Hist._ xv. 898; or Bacon's _Abridgment_, tit. Habeas Corpus; also Wilmot's _Judgments_, 81. This arose out of a case of impressment, where the expeditious remedy of habeas corpus is eminently necessary. [28] 56 G. III. c. 100.