Now, too, there was enacted a law forbidding any bishop, or any ecclesiastical court to tender the ex-officio oath, by which the church had hitherto enjoyed the power of compelling a suspected person to criminate himself." In regard to the nobles, it was also during the reign of Charles II. that the House of Lords, after a sharp struggle, was obliged to abandon its pretensions to an original jurisdiction in civil suits; and thus lost for ever an important resource for extending its own influence.100 It was in the same reign that there was settled the right of the people to be taxed entirely by their representatives; the House of Commons having ever since retained the sole power of proposing money bills, and regulating the amount of imposts, merely leaving to the Peers the form of consenting to what has been already determined. These were the attempts which were made to bridle the clergy and the nobles. But there were also effected other things of equal importance. By the destruction of the scandalous prerogatives of Purveyance and Pre-emption, a limit was set to the power of the sovereign to vex his refractory subjects.102 By the Habeas Corpus Act, the liberty of every Englishman was made as certain as law could make it; it being guaranteed to him, that if accused of crime, he, instead of languishing in prison, as had often been the case, should be brought to a fair and speedy trial.103 By the Statute of Frauds and

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."

* 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.

100 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.

loi 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.

102 The "famous rights of purveyance and pre-emption" 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 Na tions, book iii. chap. ii. p. 161.

103 On the Habeas Corpus Act, which became law in 1679, see Campbell's Chan

↓

Perjuries, a security hitherto unknown was conferred upon private property.104 By the abolition of general impeachments, an end was put to a great engine of tyranny, with which powerful and unscrupulous men had frequently ruined their political adversaries. 105 By the cessation of those laws which restricted the liberty of printing, there was laid the foundation of that great Public Press, which, more than any other single cause, has diffused among the people a knowledge of their own power, and has thus, to an almost incredible extent, aided the progress of English civilization.106 And, to complete this noble picture, there were finally destroyed those feudal incidents which our Norman conquerors had imposed,-the military tenures; the court of wards; the fines for alienation; the right of forfeiture for marriage by reason of tenure; the aids, the homages, the escuages, the primer seisins; and all those mischievous subtleties, of which the mere names sound in modern ears as a wild and barbarous jargon, but which pressed upon our ancestors as real and serious evils. 107

These were the things which were done in the reign of Charles II.; and if we consider the miserable incompetence of the king, the idle profligacy of his court, the unblushing venal

cellors, 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."

104 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 Statist. Soc. vol. xvii. p. 150.

105 Lord Campbell (Lives of the Chancellors, vol. iii. p. 247) says, that the struggle in 1667 "put an end to general impeachments."

106 Printing at first was regulated by royal proclamations; then by the Starchamber; and afterwards by the Long Parliament. The decrees of the Star-chamber were taken as the basis of 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 33; but this act expired in 1679, and was not renewed during the reign of Charles II. Compare Blackstone's Comment. vol. iv. p. 152, with Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers, vol. i. p. 154, and Fox's Hist. of James II. p. 146.

107 The fullest account I have seen in any history, of this great Revolution which swept away the traditions and the language of feudalism, is that given in Harris's Lives of the Stuarts, vol. iv. pp. 369-378. But Harris, though an industrious collector, was a man of slender ability, and not at all aware of the real nature of a change, of which the obvious and immediately practical results formed the smallest part. The true point of view is, that it was a formal recognition by the legislature that the Middle Ages were extinct, and that it was necessary to inaugurate a more modern and innovating policy. Hereafter I shall have occasion to examine this in detail, and show how it was merely a symptom of a revolutionary movement. In the mean time the reader may refer to the very short notices in Dalrymple's Hist. of Feudal Property, p. 89; Blackstone's Comment. vol. ii. pp. 76, 77; Hallam's Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 11; Parl. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 53, 167, 168; Meyer, Institutions Judiciaires, vol. ii. p. 58.

ity of his ministers, the constant conspiracies to which the country was exposed from within, and the unprecedented insults to which it was subjected from without; if we, moreover, consider that, to all this there were added two natural calamities of the most grievous description,--a Great Plague, which thinned society in all its ranks, and scattered confusion through the kingdom; and a Great Fire, which, besides increasing the mortality from the pestilence, destroyed in a moment those accumulations of industry by which industry itself is nourished;—if we put all these things together, how can we reconcile inconsistencies apparently so gross? How could so wonderful a progress be made in the face of these unparalleled disasters? How could such men, under such circumstances, effect such improvements? These are questions which our political compilers are unable to answer; because they look too much at the peculiarities of individuals, and too little at the temper of the age in which those individuals live. Such writers do not perceive that the history of every civilized country is the history of its intellectual development, which kings, statesmen, and legislators are more likely to retard than to hasten; because, however great their power may be, they are at best the accidental and insufficient representatives of the spirit of their time; and because, so far from being able to regulate the movements of the national mind, they themselves form the smallest part of it, and, in a general view of the progress of Man, are only to be regarded as the puppets who strut and fret their hour upon a little stage; while, beyond them, and on every side of them, are forming opinions and principles which they can scarcely perceive, but by which alone the whole course of human affairs is ultimately governed.

The truth is, that the vast legislative reforms, for which the reign of Charles II. is so remarkable, merely form a part of that movement, which, though traceable to a much earlier period, had only for three generations been in undisguised operation. These important improvements were the result of that bold, sceptical, inquiring, and reforming spirit, which had now seized the three great departments of Theology, of Science, and of Politics. The old principles of tradition, of authority, and of dogma, were gradually becoming weaker; and of course, in the same proportion, there was diminished the influence of the classes by whom those principles were chiefly upheld. As the power of particular sections of society thus declined, the power of the people at large increased. The real interests of the nation began to be perceived, so soon as the superstitions were dispersed by which those interests had long been obscured. This, I believe, is the real solution of what at first seems a curious problem,—namely, how

it was that such comprehensive reforms should have been accomplished in so bad, and in many respects so infamous, a reign. It is, no doubt, true, that those reforms were essentially the result of the intellectual march of the age; but, so far from being made in spite of the vices of the sovereign, they were actually aided by them. With the exception of the needy profligates who thronged his court, all classes of men soon learned to despise a king who was a drunkard, a libertine, and a hypocrite; who had neither shame nor sensibility; and who, in point of honour, was unworthy to enter the presence of the meanest of his subjects. To have the throne filled for a quarter of a century by such a man as this, was the surest way of weakening that ignorant and indiscriminate loyalty, to which the people have often sacrificed their dearest rights. Thus, the character of the king, merely considered from this point of view, was eminently favourable to the growth of national liberty.109 But the advantage did not stop there. The reckless debaucheries of Charles made him abhor every thing approaching to restraint; and this gave him a dislike to a class, whose profession, at least, presupposes a conduct of more than ordinary purity. The consequence was, that he, not from views of enlightened policy, but merely from a love of vicious indulgence, always had a distaste for the clergy; and, so far from advancing their power, frequently expressed for them an open contempt.109 His most intimate friends directed against them those coarse and profligate jokes, which are preserved in the literature of the time; and which, in the opinion of the courtiers, were to be ranked among the noblest specimens of human wit. From men of this sort

108 Mr. Hallam has a noble passage on the services rendered to English civilization by the vices of the English court: "We are, however, much indebted to the memory of Barbara duchess of Cleveland, Louisa duchess of Portsmouth, and Mrs. Eleanor Gwyn. We owe a tribute of gratitude to the Mays, the Killigrews, the Chiffinches, and the Grammonts. They played a serviceable part in ridding the kingdom of its besotted loyalty. They saved our forefathers from the Star-chamber and the High-commission court; they laboured in their vocation against standing armies and corruption; they pressed forward the great ultimate security of English freedom-the expulsion of the house of Stuart." Hallam's Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 50.

109 Burnet (Own Time, vol. i. p. 448) tells us that, in 1667, the king, even at the council-board, expressed himself against the bishops, and said, that the clergy "thought of nothing but to get good benefices, and to keep a good table." See also, on his dislike to the bishops, vol. ii. p. 22; and Pepys' Diary, vol. iv. p. 2. In another place, vol. iv. p. 42, Pepys writes: "And I believe the hierarchy will in a little time be shaken, whether they will or no; the king being offended with them, and set upon it, as I hear." Evelyn, in a conversation with Pepys, noticed with regret such conduct of Charles, "that a bishop shall never be seen about him, as the king of France hath always." Pepys, vol. iii. p. 201. Evelyn, in his benevolent way, ascribes this to "the negligence of the clergy:" but history teaches us, that the clergy have never neglected kings, except when the king has first neglected them. Sir John Reresby gives a curious account of a conversation Charles II. held with him respecting "mitred heads," in which the feeling of the king is very apparent. Reresby's Travels and Memoirs, p. 238.

the church had, indeed, little to apprehend; but their language, and the favour with which it was received, are part of the symptoms by which we may study the temper of that age. Many other illustrations will occur to most readers; I may, however, mention one, which is interesting on account of the eminence of the philosopher concerned in it. The most dangerous opponent of the clergy in the seventeenth century, was certainly Hobbes, the subtlest dialectician of his time; a writer, too, of singular clearness, and, among British metaphysicians, inferior only to Berkeley. This profound thinker published several speculations very unfavourable to the church, and directly opposed to principles which are essential to ecclesiastical authority. As a natural consequence, he was hated by the clergy; his doctrines were declared to be highly pernicious; and he was accused of wishing to subvert the national religion, and corrupt the national morals.110 So far did this proceed, that, during his life, and for several years after his death, every man who ventured to think for himself was stigmatized as a Hobbist, or, as it was sometimes called, a Hobbian. This marked hostility on the part of the clergy, was a sufficient recommendation to the favour of Charles. The king, even before his accession, had imbibed many of his principles; and, after the Restoration, he treated the author with what was deemed a scandalous respect. He protected him from his enemies; he somewhat ostentatiously hung up his portrait in his own private room at Whitehall;" 113 and he even conferred a pension on this, the most formidable opponent who had yet appeared against the spiritual hierarchy."14"

111

110 On the animosity of the clergy against Hobbes, and on the extent to which he reciprocated it, compare Aubrey's Letters and Lives, vol. ii. pp. 532, 631; Tennemann, Gesch. der Philos. vol. x. p. 111; with the angry language of Burnet (Own Time, vol. i. p. 322), and of Whiston (Memoirs, p. 251). See also Wood's Athena Oxonienses, edit. Bliss, vol. iii. p. 1211. Monconys, who was in London in 1663, says of Hobbes, "Il me dit l'aversion que tous les gens d'église tant catholiques que protestans avoient pour lui." Monconys' Voyages, vol. iii. p. 43; and p. 115, "M. Hobbes, que je trouvai toujours fort ennemi des prêtres catholiques et des protestans." About the same time, Sorbiere was in London; and he writes respecting Hobbes: "I know not how it comes to pass, the clergy are afraid of him, and so are the Oxford mathematicians and their adherents; wherefore his majesty (Charles II.) was pleased to make a very good comparison when he told me, he was like a bear, whom they baited with dogs to try him." Sorbiere's Voyage to England, p. 40.

This was a common expression for whoever attacked established opinions late in the seventeenth, and even early in the eighteenth century. For instances of it, see Baxter's Life of Himself, folio, 1696, part iii. p. 48; Boyle's Works, vol. v. pp. 505, 510; Monk's Life of Bentley, vol. i. p. 41; Vernon Correspond. vol. iii. p. 13; King's Life of Locke, vol. i. p. 191; Brewster's Life of Newton, vol. ii. p. 149.

12 Burnet says, they "made deep and lasting impressions on the king's mind." Own Time, vol. i. p. 172.

113 A likeness, by Cooper. See Wood's Athena Oxonienses, edit. Bliss, vol. iii,

p. 1208.

114 Sorbiere's Voyage to England, p. 39; Wood's Athena Oxonienses, vol. iii. p.