Chapter VII: Part 7

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 as _habeas 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._"[1] The writ is a remedial mandatory writ of right existing by the common law, i.e. it is one of the extraordinary remedies--such as _mandamus_, _certiorari_ and 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 of _habeas corpus_ before the charter. Other writs having somewhat similar effect were in use at an early date, e.g. the writ _de odio et atia_, 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 of _habeas 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 on _habeas 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 a _habeas corpus_ that 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."[2] This led to legislation in 1640 by which, after abolishing the Star Chamber, the right to a _habeas corpus_ was 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 of _habeas corpus_ was 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 proceedings[4] than 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.[5] It 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 of _habeas corpus_ directed 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 of _habeas corpus_ is 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 a _habeas corpus_ returnable 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 a _habeas corpus_ shall have none in vacation. (3) Persons set at large on _habeas corpus_ shall 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 delaying _habeas corpus_ forfeits L500 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 L500, besides subjecting him to the penalties of _praemunire_ and 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 or _certiorari_ to which a writ of _habeas corpus_ might 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 not _sui juris_ detained by those not entitled to their guardianship or lunatics, or persons kidnapped, _habeas corpus ad subjiciendum_ seems not to have been the ordinary common law remedy. The appropriate writ for such cases was that known as _de 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 the _habeas corpus ad subjiciendum_ has 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's _Opinions_, 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 of _habeas corpus_ shall 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 of _habeas corpus_ in 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 the _Crown 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 act annually 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 is _ex hypothesi_ suspended 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."

There are various other forms of the writ according to the purpose for
which it is granted. Thus _habeas corpus ad respondendum_ is used to
bring up a prisoner confined by the process of an inferior court in
order to charge him in another proceeding (civil or criminal) in the
superior court or some other court. As regards civil proceedings, this
form of the writ is now rarely used, owing to the abolition of arrest
on mesne process and the restriction of imprisonment for debt, or in
execution of a civil judgment. The right to issue the writ depends on
the common law, supplemented by an act of 1802. It is occasionally
used for the purpose of bringing a person in custody for debt or on a
criminal charge before a criminal court to be charged in respect of a
criminal proceeding: but the same result may be obtained by means of
an order of a secretary of state, made under s. 11 of the Prison Act
1898, or by the written order of a court of criminal jurisdiction
before which he is required to take his trial on indictment (Criminal
Law Amendment Act 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 10.)

Other forms are _ad satisfaciendum_; _ad faciendum et recipiendum_, to
remove into a superior court proceedings under which the defendant is
in custody: _ad testificandum_, where a prisoner is required as a
witness, issued under an act of 1804 (s. 11), which is in practice
replaced by orders under s. 11 of the Prison Act 1898 (_supra_) or the
order of a judge under s. 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1853: and
_ad deliberandum et recipias_, to authorize the transfer from one
custody to another for purposes of trial, which is in practice
superseded by the provisions of the Prison Acts 1865, 1871 and 1898,
and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867 (_supra_).

The above forms are now of little or no importance; but the procedure
for obtaining them and the forms of writ are included in the _Crown
Office Rules_ 1906.

_Ireland._--The common law of Ireland as to the writs of _habeas
corpus_ is the same as that in England. The writ has in past times
been issued from the English court of king's bench into Ireland; but
does not now so issue. The acts of 1803 and 1816 already mentioned
apply to Ireland. The Petition of Right is not in terms applicable to
Ireland. The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 does not apply to Ireland; but its
equivalent is supplied by an act of 1781-1782 of the Irish parliament
(21 & 22 Geo. III. c. 11). Sec. 16 contains a provision empowering the
chief governor and privy council of Ireland by a proclamation under
the great seal of Ireland to suspend the act during such time only as
there shall be an actual invasion or rebellion in Ireland; and it is
enacted that during the currency of the proclamation no judge or
justices shall bail or try any person charged with being concerned in
the rebellion or invasion without an order from the lord lieutenant or
lord deputy and senior of the privy council. In Ireland by an act of
1881 the Irish executive was given an absolute power of arbitrary and
preventive arrest on suspicion of treason or of an act tending to
interfere with the maintenance of law and order: but the warrant of
arrest was made conclusive. This act continued by annual renewals
until 1906, when it expired.

_Scotland._--The writ of _habeas corpus_ is unknown to Scots law, nor
will it issue from English courts into Scotland. Under a Scots act of
1701 (c. 6) provision is made for preventing wrongous imprisonment and
against undue delay in trials. It was applied to treason felony in
1848. The right to speedy trial is now regulated by s. 43 of the
Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1887. These enactments are as to
Scotland equivalent to the English Act of 1679. Under the Court of
Exchequer Scotland Act 1856 (19 & 20 V. c. 56) provision is made for
bringing before the court of session persons and proceedings before
inferior courts and public officers--which is analogous to the powers
to issue _habeas corpus_ in such cases out of the English court of
exchequer (now the revenue side of the king's bench division).

_British Possessions._--The act of 1679 expressly applies to Wales,
Berwick-on-Tweed, Jersey and Guernsey, and the act of 1816 also
extends to the Isle of Man. The court of king's bench has also issued
the writ to the king's foreign dominions beyond seas, e.g. to St
Helena, and so late as 1861 to Canada (Anderson's case 1861, 30
L.J.Q.B. 129). In consequence of the last decision it was provided by
the Habeas Corpus Act 1862 that no writ of _habeas corpus_ should
issue out of England by authority of any court or judge "into any
colony or foreign dominion of the crown where the crown has a lawfully
established court of justice having authority to grant or issue the
writ and to ensure its due execution in the 'colony' or dominion" (25
& 26 V. c. 20). The expression "foreign dominion" is meant to apply to
places outside the British Islands, and does not include the Isle of
Man or the Channel Islands (see _re Brown_ [1864], 33 L.J.Q.B. 193).

In Australasia and Canada and in most if not all the British
possessions whose law is based on the common law, the power to issue
and enforce the writ is possessed and is freely exercised by colonial
courts, under the charters or statutes creating and regulating the
courts. The writ is freely resorted to in Canada, and in 1905, 1906,
two appeals came to the privy council from the dominion, one with
reference to an extradition case, the other with respect to the right
to expel aliens.

Under the Roman-Dutch law as applied in British Guiana the writ was
unknown and no similar process existed (2nd report of West Indian law
commissioners). But by the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1893 that court
possesses (_inter alia_) all the authorities, powers and functions
belonging to or incident to a superior court of record in England,
which appears to include the power to issue the writ of _habeas
corpus_. Under the Roman-Dutch law as applied to South Africa free
persons appear to have a right to release under a writ _de libero
homine exhibendo_, which closely resembles the writ of _habeas
corpus_, and the procedure described as "manifestation" used in the
kingdom of Aragon (Hallam, _Middle Ages_, vol. ii., c. iv.). The writ
of _habeas corpus_ has not been formally adopted or the Habeas Corpus
Acts formally extended to South Africa; but in the Cape Colony, under
the charter of justice and colonial legislation, the supreme court on
petition grants a remedy equivalent to that obtained in England by
writ of _habeas corpus_; and the remedy is sometimes so described
(_Koke_ v. _Balie_, 1879, 9 Buchanan, 45, 64, arising out of a rising
in Griqualand). During and after the South African War of 1899-1902
many attempts were made by this procedure to challenge or review the
sentences of courts martial; see _re Fourie_ (1900). 18 _Cape Rep._ 8.

The laws of Ceylon being derived from the Roman-Dutch law, the writ of
_habeas corpus_ is not indigenous: but, under s. 49 of the Supreme
Court Ordinance 1889, the court or a judge has power to grant and
issue "mandates in the nature of writs of _habeas corpus_." The
chartered high courts in India have power to issue and enforce the
writ of _habeas corpus_. The earliest record of its use was in 1775,
when it was directed to Warren Hastings. It has been used to test the
question whether Roman Catholic religious orders could enter India,
and in 1870 an attempt was made thereby to challenge the validity of a
warrant in the nature of a _lettre de cachet_ issued by the viceroy
(Ind. L. Rep. 6 Bengal, 392, 456, 498), and it has also been applied
to settle controversies between Hindus and missionaries as to the
custody of a young convert (_R._ v. _Vaughan_, 1870, 5 Bengal, 418),
and between a Mahommedan husband and his mother-in-law as to the
custody of a girl-wife (_Khatija Bibi_, 1870, 5 Bengal, 557).

_United States._--Before the Declaration of Independence some of the North American colonies had adopted the act of 1679; and the federal and the other state legislatures of the United States have founded their procedure on that act. The common law as to the writ of _habeas corpus_ has been inherited from England, and has been generally made to apply to commitments and detentions of all kinds. Difficult questions, unknown to English law, have arisen from the peculiar features of the American state-system. Thus the constitution provides 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 require it"; and it has been the subject of much dispute whether the power of suspension under this provision is vested in the president or the congress. The weight of opinion seems to lean to the latter alternative. Again, conflicts have arisen between the courts of individual states and the courts of the union. It seems that a state court has no right to issue a _habeas corpus_ for the discharge of a person held under the authority of the federal government. On the other hand, the courts of the union issue the writ only in those cases in which the power is expressly conferred on them by the constitution.

AUTHORITIES.--Paterson, _Liberty of the Subject_ (1877); Short and
Mellor, _Crown Practice_ (1890); American: Church on _Habeas Corpus_
(2nd ed. 1893). (W. F. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Hallam, _Const. Hist._ vol. i., c. vii. (12th ed.) p. 384.

[2] Hallam, _Const. Hist._ vol. ii., c. viii. (12th ed.) p. 2.

[3] _Ibid._ c. ix. (12th ed.) p. 98.

[4] _Ibid._ vol. iii., c. xiii. (12th ed.) p. 12.

[5] Dicey, _Law of the Constitution_ (6th ed.), p. 217.

[6] Dicey, Law of the Constitution (6th ed.), p. 195.

HABERDASHER, a name for a tradesman who sells by retail small articles used in the making or wearing of dress, such as sewing cottons or silks, tapes, buttons, pins and needles and the like. The sale of such articles is not generally carried on alone, and a "haberdashery counter" usually forms a department of drapers' shops. The word, found in Chaucer, and even earlier (1311), is of obscure origin; the suggestion that it is connected with an Icelandic _haprtask_, "haversack," is, according to the _New English Dictionary_, impossible. _Haperlas_ occurs in an early Anglo-French customs list, which includes articles such as were sold by haberdashers, but this word may itself have been a misspelling of "haberdash." The obscurity of origin has left room for many conjectures such as that of Minsheu that "haberdasher" was perhaps merely a corruption of the German _Habt ihr das?_ "Have you that?" or _Habe das, Herr_, "Have that, sir," used descriptively for a general dealer in miscellaneous wares. The Haberdashers' Company is one of the greater Livery Companies of the City of London. Originally a branch of the mercers, the fraternity took over the selling of "small wares," which included not only articles similar to those sold as "haberdashery" now, but such things as gloves, daggers, glass, pens, lanterns, mousetraps and the like. They were thus on this side connected with the Milliners. On the other hand there was early a fusion with the old gild of the "Hurers," or cap makers, and the hatters, and by the reign of Henry VII. the amalgamation was complete. There were long recognized two branches of the haberdashers, the haberdashers of "small wares," and the haberdashers of hats (see further LIVERY COMPANIES). The haberdashers are named, side by side with the _capellarii_, in the White Book (_Liber Albus_) of the city of London (see _Munimenta Gildhallae Londiniensis_, ed. H. T. Riley, Rolls Series, 12, 1859-1862), and a haberdasher forms one of the company of pilgrims in the _Canterbury Tales_ (Prologue, 361).

HABINGTON, WILLIAM (1605-1654), English poet, was born at Hendlip Hall, Worcestershire, on the 4th of November 1605. He belonged to a well-known Catholic family. His father, Thomas Habington (1560-1647), an antiquary and historical scholar, had been implicated in the plots on behalf of Mary queen of Scots; his uncle, Edward Habington, was hanged in 1586 on the charge of conspiring against Elizabeth in connexion with Anthony Babington; while to his mother, Mary Habington, was attributed the revelation of the Gunpowder Plot. The poet was sent to the college at St Omer, but, pressure being brought to bear on him to induce him to become a Jesuit, he removed to Paris. He married about 1632 Lucy, second daughter of Sir William Herbert, first Baron Powys. This lady he had addressed in the volume of lyrical poems arranged in two parts and entitled _Castara_, published anonymously in 1634. In 1635 appeared a second edition enlarged by three prose characters, fourteen new lyrics and eight touching elegies on his friend and kinsman, George Talbot. The third edition (1640) contains a third part consisting of a prose character of "A Holy Man" and twenty-two devotional poems. Habington's lyrics are full of the far-fetched "conceits" which were fashionable at court, but his verse is quite free from the prevailing looseness of morals. Indeed his reiterated praises of Castara's virtue grow wearisome. He is at his best in his reflective poems on the uncertainty of human life and kindred topics. He also wrote a _Historie of Edward the Fourth_ (1640), based on notes provided by his father; a tragi-comedy, _The Queene of Arragon_ (1640), published without his consent by his kinsman, the earl of Pembroke, and revived at the Restoration; and six essays on events in modern history, _Observations upon History_ (1641). Anthony a Wood insinuated that during the Commonwealth the poet "did run with the times, and was not unknown to Oliver the usurper." He died on the 30th of November 1654.

The works of Habington have not been collected. _The Queene of
Arragon_ was reprinted in Dodsley's "Old Plays," vol. ix. (1825);
_Castara_ was edited by Charles Elton (1812), and by E. Arber with a
compact and comprehensive introduction (1870) for his "English
Reprints."

HABIT (through the French from Lat. _habitus_, from _habere_, to have, hold, or, in a reflective sense, to be in a certain condition; in many of the English senses the French use _habitude_, not _habit_), condition of body or mind, especially one that has become permanent or settled by custom or persistent repetition, hence custom, usage. In botany and zoology the term is used both in the above sense of instinctive action of animals and tendencies of plants, and also of the manner of growth or external appearance of a plant or animal. From the use of the word for external appearances comes its use for fashion in dress, and hence as a term for a lady's riding dress and for the particular form of garment adopted by the members of a religious order, like "cowl" applied as the mark of a monk or nun.

HABITAT (a French word derived from _habiter_, Lat. _habitare_, to dwell), in botany and zoology, the term for the locality in which a particular species of plants or animals thrives.

HABSBURG, or HAPSBURG, the name of the famous family from which have sprung the dukes and archdukes of Austria from 1282, kings of Hungary and Bohemia from 1526, and emperors of Austria from 1804. They were also Roman emperors and German kings from 1438 to 1806, and kings of Spain from 1516 to 1700, while the minor dignities held by them at different times are too numerous to mention.

The name Habsburg, a variant of an older form, Habichtsburg (hawk's castle), was taken from the castle of Habsburg, which was situated on the river Aar not far from its junction with the Rhine. The castle was built about 1020 by Werner, bishop of Strassburg, and his brother, Radbot, the founder of the abbey of Muri. These men were grandsons of a certain Guntram, who, according to some authorities, is identical with a Count Guntram who flourished during the reign of the emperor Otto the Great, and whose ancestry can be traced back to the time of the Merovingian kings. This conjecture, however, is extremely problematical. Among Radbot's sons was one Werner, and Werner and his son Otto were called counts of Habsburg, Otto being probably made landgrave of upper Alsace late in the 11th or early in the 12th century. At all events Otto's son Werner (d. 1167), and the latter's son Albert (d. 1199), held this dignity, and both landgraves increased the area of the Habsburg lands. Albert became count of Zurich and protector of the monastery of Sackingen, and obtained lands in the cantons of Unterwalden and Lucerne; his son Rudolph, having assisted Frederick of Hohenstaufen, afterwards the emperor Frederick II., against the emperor Otto IV., received the county of Aargau. Both counts largely increased their possessions in the districts now known as Switzerland and Alsace, and Rudolph held an influential place among the Swabian nobility. After his death in 1232 his two sons, Albert and Rudolph, divided his lands and founded the lines of Habsburg-Habsburg and Habsburg-Laufenburg. Rudolph's descendants, counts of Habsburg-Laufenburg, were soon divided into two branches, one of which became extinct in 1408 and the other seven years later. Before this date, however, Laufenburg and some other districts had been sold to the senior branch of the family, who thus managed to retain the greater part of the Habsburg lands.

Rudolph's brother Albert (d. 1239), landgrave of Alsace, married Hedwig of Kyburg (d. 1260), and from this union there was born in 1218 Rudolph, the founder of the greatness of the house of Habsburg, and the first of the family to ascend the German throne. Through his mother he inherited a large part of the lands of the extinct family of Zahringen; he added in other ways to his possessions, and was chosen German king in September 1273. Acting vigorously in his new office, he defeated and killed his most formidable adversary, Ottakar II., king of Bohemia, in 1278, and in December 1282 he invested his sons, Albert and Rudolph, with the duchies of Austria and Styria, which with other lands had been taken from Ottakar. This was an event of supreme moment in the history of the Habsburgs, and was the first and most important stage in the process of transferring the centre of their authority from western to eastern Europe, from the Rhine to the Danube. On Rudolph's death in July 1291 the German crown passed for a time away from the Habsburgs, but in July 1298 it was secured by his son, Albert, whose reign, however, was short and uneventful. But before 1308, the year of Albert's death, the long and troubled connexion of the Habsburgs with Bohemia had already begun. In 1306 Wenceslas III., the last Bohemian king of the P[vr]myslide dynasty, was murdered. Seizing the opportunity and declaring that the vacant kingdom was an imperial fief, King Albert bestowed it upon his eldest son, Rudolph, and married this prince to Elizabeth, widow of Wenceslas II. and stepmother of Wenceslas III. But Rudolph died in 1307, and his father's attempt to keep the country in his own hands was ended by his murder in 1308.

Albert's successor as German king was Henry of Luxemburg (the emperor Henry VII.), and this election may be said to initiate the long rivalry between the houses of Habsburg and Luxemburg. But the immediate enemy of the Habsburgs was not a Luxemburg but a Wittelsbach. Without making any definite partition, Albert's five remaining sons spent their time in governing their lands until 1314, when one of them, Frederick called the Fair, forsook this comparatively uneventful occupation and was chosen by a minority of the electors German king in succession to Henry VII. At the same time the Wittelsbach duke of Bavaria, Louis, known to history as the emperor Louis the Bavarian, was also chosen. War was inevitable, and the battle of Muhldorf, fought in September 1322, sealed the fate of Frederick. Louis was victorious: his rival went into an honourable captivity, and the rising Habsburg sun underwent a temporary eclipse.

For more than a century after Frederick's death in 1330 the Habsburgs were exiles from the German throne. But they were not inactive. In 1335 his two surviving brothers, Albert and Otto, inherited Carinthia and part of Carniola by right of their mother, Elizabeth; in 1363 Albert's son Rudolph received Tirol; and during the same century part of Istria, Trieste and other districts were acquired. All King Albert's six sons had died without leaving male issue save Otto, whose family became extinct in 1344, and Albert, the ancestor of all the later Habsburgs. Of Albert's four sons two also left no male heirs, but the remaining two, Albert III. and Leopold III., were responsible for a division of the family which is of some importance. By virtue of a partition made upon their brother Rudolph's death in 1365 Albert and his descendants ruled over Austria, while Leopold and his sons took Styria, Carinthia and Tirol, Alsace remaining undivided as heretofore.

Towards the middle of the 15th century the German throne had been occupied for nearly a hundred years by members of the Luxemburg family. The reigning emperor Sigismund, who was also king of Hungary and Bohemia, was without sons, and his daughter Elizabeth was the wife of Albert of Habsburg, the grandson and heir of Duke Albert III., who had died in 1395. Sigismund died in December 1437, leaving his two kingdoms to his son-in-law, who was crowned king of Hungary in January 1438 and king of Bohemia in the following June. Albert was also chosen and crowned German king in succession to Sigismund, thus beginning the long and uninterrupted connexion of his family with the imperial throne, a connexion which lasted until the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. He did not, however, enjoy his new dignities for long, as he died in October 1439 while engaged in a struggle with the Turks. Albert left no sons, but soon after his death one was born to him, called Ladislaus, who became duke of Austria and king of Hungary and Bohemia. Under the guardianship of his kinsman, the emperor Frederick III., the young prince's reign was a troubled one, and when he died unmarried in 1457 his branch of the family became extinct, and Hungary and Bohemia passed away from the Habsburgs, who managed, however, to retain Austria.

Leopold III., duke of Carinthia and Styria, who was killed in 1386 at the battle of Sempach, had four sons, of whom two only, Frederick and Ernest, left male issue. Frederick and his only son, Sigismund, confined their attention mainly to Tirol and Alsace, leaving the larger destinies of the family in the hands of Ernest of Carinthia and Styria (d. 1424) and his sons, Frederick and Albert and after the death of King Ladislaus in 1457 these two princes and their cousin Sigismund were the only representatives of the Habsburgs. In February 1440 Frederick of Styria was chosen German king in succession to his kinsman Albert. He was a weak and incompetent ruler, but a stronger and abler man might have shrunk from the task of administering his heterogeneous and unruly realm. Although very important in the history of the house of Habsburg, Frederick's long reign was a period of misfortune, and the motto which he assumed, A.E.I.O.U. (_Austriae est imperare orbi universo_), seemed at the time a particularly foolish boast. He acted as guardian both to Ladislaus of Hungary, Bohemia and Austria, and to Sigismund of Tirol, and in all these countries his difficulties were increased by the hostility of his brother Albert. Having disgusted the Tirolese he gave up the guardianship of their prince in 1446, while in Hungary and Bohemia he did absolutely nothing to establish the authority of his ward; in 1452 the Austrians besieged him in Vienna Neustadt and compelled him to surrender the person of Ladislaus, thus ending even his nominal authority. When the young king died in 1457 the Habsburgs lost Hungary and Bohemia, but they retained Austria, which, after some disputing, Frederick and Albert divided between themselves, the former taking lower and the latter upper Austria. This arrangement was of short duration. In 1461 Albert made war upon his brother and forced him to resign lower Austria, which, however, he recovered after Albert's death in December 1463. Still more unfortunate was the German king in Switzerland. For many years the Swiss had chafed under the rule of the Habsburgs; during the reign of Rudolph I. they had shown signs of resentment as the kingly power increased; and the struggle which had been carried on for nearly two centuries had been almost uniformly in their favour. It was marked by the victory of Morgarten over Duke Leopold I. in 1315, and by that of Sempach over Leopold III. in 1386, by the conquest of Aargau at the instigation of the emperor Sigismund early in the 15th century, and by the final struggle for freedom against Frederick III. and Sigismund of Tirol. Taking advantage of some dissensions among the Swiss, the king saw an opportunity to recover his lost lands, and in 1443 war broke out. But his allies, the men of Zurich, were defeated, and when in August 1444 some French mercenaries, who had advanced to his aid, suffered the same fate at St Jakob, he was compelled to give up the struggle. A few years later Sigismund became involved in a war with the same formidable foemen; he too was worsted, and the "Perpetual Peace" of 1474 ended the rule of the Habsburgs in Switzerland. This humiliation was the second great step in the process of removing the Habsburgs from western to eastern Europe. In 1453, just after his coronation as emperor at Rome, Frederick legalized the use of the title archduke, which had been claimed spasmodically by the Habsburgs since 1361. This title is now peculiar to the house of Habsburg.

The reverses suffered by the Habsburgs during the reign of Frederick III. were many and serious, but an improvement was at hand. The emperor died in August 1493, and was followed on the imperial throne by his son Maximilian I., perhaps the most versatile and interesting member of the family. Before his father's death Maximilian had been chosen German king, or king of the Romans, and had begun to repair the fortunes of his house. He had married Mary, daughter and heiress of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy; he had driven the Hungarians from Vienna and the Austrian archduchies, which Frederick had, perforce, allowed them to occupy; and he had received Tirol on the abdication of Sigismund in 1490. True it is that upon Mary's death in 1482 part of her inheritance, the rich and prosperous Netherlands, held that her husband's authority was at an end, while another part, the two Burgundies and Artois, had been seized by the king of France; nevertheless, after a protracted struggle the German king secured almost the whole of Charles the Bold's lands for his son, the archduke Philip, the duchy of Burgundy alone remaining in the power of France after the conclusion of the peace of Senlis in 1493. Maximilian completed his work by adding a piece of Bavaria, Gorz and then Gradiska to the Habsburg lands.

After Sigismund's death in 1496 Maximilian and Philip were the only living male members of the family. Philip married Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, and died in 1506 leaving two sons, Charles and Ferdinand. Charles succeeded his father in the Netherlands; he followed one grandfather, Ferdinand, as king of Spain in 1516, and when the other, Maximilian, died in 1519 he became the emperor Charles V., and succeeded to all the hereditary lands of the Habsburgs. But provision had to be made for Ferdinand, and in 1521 this prince was given the Austrian archduchies, Austria, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola; in the same year he married Anne, daughter of Wladislaus, king of Hungary and Bohemia, and when his childless brother-in-law, King Louis, was killed at the battle of Mohacs in August 1526 he claimed the two kingdoms, both by right of his wife and by treaty. After a little trouble Bohemia passed under his rule, but Hungary was more recalcitrant. A long war took place between Ferdinand and John Zapolya, who was also crowned king of Hungary, but in 1538 a treaty was made and the country was divided, the Habsburg prince receiving the western and smaller portion. However, he was soon confronted with a more formidable foe, and he spent a large part of his subsequent life in defending his lands from the attacks of the Turks.

The Habsburgs had now reached the summit of their power. The prestige which belonged to Charles as head of the Holy Roman Empire was backed by the wealth and commerce of the Netherlands and of Spain, and by the riches of the Spanish colonies in America. In Italy he ruled over Sardinia, Naples and Sicily, which had passed to him with Spain, and the duchy of Milan, which he had annexed in 1535; to the Netherlands he had added Friesland, the bishopric of Utrecht, Groningen and Gelderland, and he still possessed Franche-Comte and the fragments of the Habsburg lands in Alsace and the neighbourhood. Add to this Ferdinand's inheritance, the Austrian archduchies and Tirol, Bohemia with her dependent provinces, and a strip of Hungary, and the two brothers had under their sway a part of Europe the extent of which was great, but the wealth and importance of which were immeasurably greater. Able to scorn the rivalry of the other princely houses of Germany, the Habsburgs saw in the kings of the house of Valois the only foemen worthy of their regard.

When Charles V. abdicated he was succeeded as emperor, not by his son Philip, but by his brother Ferdinand. Philip became king of Spain, ruling also the Netherlands, Franche-Comte, Naples, Sicily, Milan and Sardinia, and the family was definitely divided into the Spanish and Austrian branches. For Spain and the Spanish Habsburgs the 17th century was a period of loss and decay, the seeds of which were sown during the reign of Philip II. The northern provinces of the Netherlands were lost practically in 1609 and definitely by the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; Roussillon and Artois were annexed to France by the treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659, while Franche-Comte and a number of towns in the Spanish Netherlands suffered a similar fate by the treaty of Nijmwegen in 1678. Finally Charles II., the last Habsburg king of Spain, died childless in November 1700, and his lands were the prize of the War of the Spanish Succession. The Austrian Habsburgs fought long and valiantly for the kingdom of their kinsman, but Louis XIV. was too strong for them, and by the peace of Rastatt Spain passed from the Habsburgs to the Bourbons. However, the Austrian branch of the family received in 1714 the Italian possessions of Charles II., except Sicily, which was given to the duke of Savoy, and also the southern Netherlands, which are thus often referred to as the Austrian Netherlands; and retained the duchy of Mantua, which it had seized in 1708.

Ferdinand I., the founder of the line of the Austrian Habsburgs, arranged a division of his lands among his three sons before his death in 1564. The eldest, Maximilian II., received Austria, Bohemia and Hungary, and succeeded his father as emperor; he married Maria, a daughter of Charles V., and though he had a large family his male line became extinct in 1619. The younger sons were Ferdinand, ruler of Tirol, and Charles, archduke of Styria. The emperor Maximilian II. left five sons, two of whom, Rudolph and Matthias, succeeded in turn to the imperial throne, but, as all the brothers were without male issue, the family was early in the 17th century threatened with a serious crisis. Rudolph died in 1612, the reigning emperor Matthias was old and ill, and the question of the succession to the Empire, to the kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia, and to the hereditary lands of the Habsburgs became acute. Turning to the collateral branches of the family, the sons of the archduke Ferdinand were debarred from the succession owing to their father's morganatic marriage with Philippine Welser, and the only hope of the house was in the sons of Charles of Styria. To prevent the Habsburg monarchy from falling to pieces the emperor's two surviving brothers renounced their rights, and it was decided that Ferdinand, a son of Charles of Styria, should succeed his cousin Matthias. The difficulties which impeded the completion of this scheme were gradually overcome, and the result was that when Matthias died in 1619 the whole of the lands of the Austrian Habsburgs was united under the rule of the emperor Ferdinand II. Tirol, indeed, a few years later was separated from the rest of the monarchy and given to the emperor's brother, the archduke Leopold, but this separation was ended when Leopold's son died in 1665.

The arbitrary measures which followed Ferdinand's acquisition of the Bohemian crown contributed to the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War, but in a short time the Bohemians were subdued, and in 1627, following a precedent set in 1547, the emperor declared the throne hereditary in the house of Habsburg. The treaty of Westphalia which ended this war took comparatively little from the Habsburgs, though they ceded Alsace to France; but the Empire was greatly weakened, and its ruler was more than ever compelled to make his hereditary lands in the east of Europe the base of his authority, finding that he derived more strength from his position as archduke of Austria than from that of emperor. Ferdinand III. succeeded his father Ferdinand II., and during the long reign of the former's son, Leopold I., the Austrian, like the Spanish, Habsburgs were on the defensive against the aggressive policy of Louis XIV., and in addition they had to withstand the assaults of the Turks. In two ways they sought to strengthen their position. The unity of the Austrian lands was strictly maintained, and several marriages kept up a close and friendly connexion with Spain. A series of victories over the sultan during the later part of the 17th century rolled back the tide of the Turkish advance, and the peace of Karlowitz made in 1699 gave nearly the whole of Hungary to the Habsburgs. Against France Austria was less successful, and a number of humiliations culminated in 1714 in the failure to secure Spain, to which reference has already been made.