See the note on 3 James 1, Ch. 4.  This statute was mentioned in the toleration act.

    See the note on 22 and 23 Charles 2, Ch. 26, and 13 and 14 Charles 2, Ch. 11.
 

    This statute was practised under in the province; but it does not appear to be necessary at present,
on account of the testamentary law, Ch. 8, S. 5.  This statute is mentioned in the letter from S. Chase.
 

    See the note on 3 James 1, Ch. 4.  This statute was mentioned in the toleration act.
 

    It is to be presumed that this statute, which has been so highly eulogized and valued in England,
and which was termed by Blackstone, the famous habeas corpus act, was held in equal estimation by
the people of the province, and there cannot be a stronger proof of the love of power manifested by
the governmental party, than is to be found in the speech of the governor, for the proprietor, in
1725, (already noticed in speaking of the statute of frauds.)  It is as follows:  " Many debates, if I
am rightly informed, have been, in former assemblies, whether the statutes of England did extend to
you or no, without either house coming to resolutions thereon, and the most common received opinions,
of the best lawyers of England, have been against it, and several adjudged cases support these
opinions, as in particular, the habeas corpus act has been often adjudged by all the judges, not to extend
either to Ireland or the plantations, which is as strong a case as can be mentioned, as it is in
favour of liberty, and the terms of the act, as general as can be."  These opinions, however, were not
acquiesced in by the people, and there were several proceedings which would shew, if it was necessary,
the adoption of this statute; in one of which, it was defended even in the Upper House, as the
birth right of the inhabitants.  No act of assembly was passed on this subject, in the provincial government.