History of Civilization in England, Vol. 1 of 3

by Henry Thomas Buckle

[638] There is a very curious account in Pepys' Diary, vol. iii. pp. 242–264, of the terror felt by the Londoners on this occasion. Pepys himself buried his gold (p. 261 and pp. 376–379). Evelyn (Diary, vol. ii. p. 287) says: ‘The alarme was so greate, that it put both country and citty into a paniq, feare, and consternation, such as I hope I shall never see more; every body was flying, none knew why or whither.’

[639] The most important of these reforms were carried, as is nearly always the case, in opposition to the real wishes of the ruling classes. Charles II. and James II. often said of the Habeas Corpus Act, ‘that a government could not subsist with such a law.’ Dalrymple's Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 104. Lord-Keeper Guilford was even opposed to the abolition of military tenures. ‘He thought,’ says his brother, ‘the taking away of the tenures a desperate wound to the liberties of the people of England.’ Lives of the Norths, vol. ii. p. 82. These are the sort of men by whom great nations are governed. A passage in Life of James, by Himself, edit. Clarke, vol. ii. p. 621, confirms the statement in Dalrymple, so far as James is concerned. This should be compared with a letter from Louis XIV., in the Barillon correspondence. Appendix to Fox's James II. p. cxxiv.

[640] Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. iv. p. 48; Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iii. p. 431. This destruction of the writ De Hæretico comburendo was in 1677. It is noticed in Palmer's Treatise on the Church, vol. i. p. 500; and in Collier's Ecclesiast. Hist. vol. viii. p. 478.

[641] This was in 1664. See the account of it in Collier's Ecclesiast. Hist. vol. viii. pp. 463–466. Collier, who is evidently displeased by the change, says: ‘The consenting, therefore, to be taxed by the temporal Commons, makes the clergy more dependent on a foreign body, takes away the right of disposing of their own money, and lays their estates in some measure at discretion.’ See also, on the injury this has inflicted on the church, Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation, pp. 259, 260. And Coleridge (Literary Remains, vol. iv. pp. 152, 153) points this out as characterizing one of the three ‘grand evil epochs of our present church.’ So marked, however, was the tendency of that time, that this most important measure was peaceably effected by an arrangement between Sheldon and Clarendon. See the notes by Onslow in Burnet's Own Time, vol. i. p. 340, vol. iv. pp. 508, 509. Compare Lord Camden's statement (Parl. Hist. vol. xvi. p. 169) with the speech of Lord Bathurst (vol. xxii. p. 77); and of Lord Temple on Tooke's case (vol. xxxv. p. 1357). Mr. Carwithen (Hist. of the Church of England, vol. ii. p. 354, Oxford, 1849) grieves over ‘this deprivation of the liberties of the English clergy.’

[642] 13 Car. II. c. 12. Compare Stephens's Life of Tooke, vol. i. pp. 169, 170, with Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. iii. p. 101. Mr. Hallam (Const. Hist. vol. i. pp. 197, 198) has adduced evidence of the way in which the clergy were accustomed to injure their opponents by the ex-officio oath.

[643] This was the issue of the famous controversy respecting Skinner, in 1669; and ‘from this time,’ says Mr. Hallam, ‘the Lords have tacitly abandoned all pretensions to an original jurisdiction in civil suits.’ Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 184. There is an account of this case of Skinner, which was connected with the East-India Company, in Mill's Hist. of India, vol. i. pp. 102, 103.

[644] Hallam's Const. Hist. vol. ii. pp. 189–192; and Eccleston's English Antiquities, p. 326. The disputes between the two houses respecting taxation, are noticed very briefly in Parker's Hist. of his Own Time, pp. 135, 136.

[645] The ‘famous rights of purveyance and preemption’ were abolished by 12 Car. II. c. 24. Hallam's Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 11. Burke, in his magnificent speech on Economical Reform, describes the abuses of the old system of purveyance. Burke's Works, vol. i. p. 239. See also Kemble's Saxons in England, vol. ii. p. 88, note; Barrington on the Statutes, pp. 183–185, 237; Lingard's Hist. of England, vol. ii. pp. 338, 339; Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue, vol. i. p. 232; Parl. Hist. vol. iii. p. 1299. These passages will give an idea of the iniquities practised under this ‘right,’ which, like most gross injustices, was one of the good old customs of the British constitution, being at least as ancient as Canute. See Allen on the Royal Prerogative, p. 152. Indeed, a recent writer of considerable learning (Spence, Origin of the Laws of Europe, p. 319) derives it from the Roman law. A bill had been brought in to take it away in 1656. See Burton's Cromwellian Diary, vol. i. p. 81. When Adam Smith wrote, it still existed in France and Germany. Wealth of Nations, book iii. chap. ii. p. 161.

[646] On the Habeas Corpus Act, which became law in 1679, see Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iii. pp. 345–347; Mackintosh, Revolution of 1688, p. 49; and Lingard's Hist. of England, vol. viii. p. 17. The peculiarities of this law, as compared with the imitations of it in other countries, are clearly stated in Meyer, Esprit des Institutions Judiciaires, vol. ii. p. 283. Mr. Lister (Life of Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 454) says: ‘Imprisonment in gaols beyond the seas was not prevented by law till the passing of the Habeas Corpus Act, in 1679.’

[647] Blackstone (Commentaries, vol. iv. p. 439) calls this ‘a great and necessary security to private property;’ and Lord Campbell (Chancellors, vol. iii. p. 423) terms it ‘the most important and most beneficial piece of juridical legislation of which we can boast.’ On its effects, compare Jones's valuable Commentary on Isæus (Works of Sir W. Jones, vol. iv. p. 239) with Story's Conflict of Laws, pp. 521, 522, 627, 884; and Tayler on Statute Law, in Journal of Statistical Society, vol. xvii. p. 150.