<P> Federal habeas review did not extend to those in state custody until almost a century after the nation's founding . During the Civil War and Reconstruction, as later during the War on Terrorism, the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus was substantially curtailed for persons accused of engaging in certain conduct . In reaction to the former, and to ensure state courts enforced federal law, a Reconstruction Act for the first time extended the right of federal court habeas review to those in the custody of state courts (prisons and jails), expanding the writ essentially to all imprisoned on American soil . The federal habeas statute that resulted, with substantial amendments, is now at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . For many decades, the great majority of habeas petitions reviewed in federal court have been filed by those imprisoned in federal prisons by state courts for state crimes (e.g., murder, rape, robbery, etc .), since in the American system, crime has historically been a matter of state law . </P> <P> The privilege of habeas corpus is not a right against unlawful arrest, but rather a right to be released from imprisonment after such arrest . If one believes the arrest is without legal merit and subsequently refuses to come willingly, he still may be guilty of resisting arrest, which can sometimes be a crime in and of itself (even if the initial arrest itself was illegal) depending on the state . </P> <P> Habeas corpus derives from the English common law where the first recorded usage was in 1305, in the reign of King Edward I of England . The procedure for the issuing of writs of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, following judicial rulings which had restricted the effectiveness of the writ . A previous act had been passed in 1640 to overturn a ruling that the command of the Queen was a sufficient answer to a petition of habeas corpus . Winston Churchill, in his chapter on the English Common Law in The Birth of Britain, explains the process thus: </P> <P> Only the King had a right to summon a jury . Henry (II) accordingly did not grant it to private courts...But all this was only a first step . Henry also had to provide means whereby the litigant, eager for royal justice, could remove his case out of the court of his lord into the court of the King . The device which Henry used was the royal writ...and any man who could by some fiction fit his own case to the wording of one of the royal writs might claim the King's justice . </P>

When was the writ of habeas corpus created