Chapter IV: , VII (11)

"This rigorous act when it passed, gave the ministers, who
could not conform, no longer time than till Bartholomewday,
August 24th, 1662, when they were all cast out. … This was
an action without a precedent: The like to this the Reformed
church, nay the Christian world, never saw before. Historians
relate, with tragical exclamations, that between three and
four score bishops were driven at once into the island of
Sardinia by the African vandals; that 200 ministers were
banished by Ferdinand, king of Bohemia; and that great havock
was, a few years after, made among the ministers of Germany by
the Imperial Interim. But these all together fall short of the
number ejected by the act of uniformity, which was not less
than 2,000. The succeeding hardships of the latter were also
by far the greatest. They were not only silenced, but had no
room left for any sort of usefulness, and were in a manner
buried alive. Far greater tenderness was used towards the
Popish clergy ejected at the Reformation. They were suffered
to live quietly; but these were oppressed to the utmost, and
that even by their brethren who professed the same faith
themselves: not only excluded preferments, but turned out into
the wide world without any visible way of subsistence. Not so
much as a poor vicarage, not an obscure chapel, not a school
was left them. Nay, though they offered, as some of them did,
to preach gratis, it must not be allowed them. … The ejected
ministers continued for ten years in a state of silence and
obscurity. … The act of uniformity took place August the
24th, 1662. On the 26th of December following, the king
published a Declaration, expressing his purpose to grant some
indulgence or liberty in religion. Some of the Nonconformists
were hereupon much encouraged, and waiting privately on the
king, had their hopes confirmed, and would have persuaded
their brethren to have thanked him for his declaration; but
they refused, lest they should make way for the toleration of
the Papists, whom they understood the king intended to include
in it. … Instead of indulgence or comprehension, on the 30th
of June, an act against private meetings, called the
Conventicle Act, passed the House of Commons, and soon after
was made a law, viz.: 'That every person above sixteen years
of age, present at any meeting, under pretence of any exercise
of religion, in other manner than is the practice of the
church of England, where there are five persons more than the
household, shall for the first offence, by a justice of peace
be recorded, and sent to gaol three months, till he pay £5,
and for the second offence six months, till he pay £10, and
the third time being convicted by a jury, shall be banished to
some of the American plantations, excepting New England or
Virginia." … In the year 1665 the plague broke out"—and
the ejected ministers boldly took possession for the time of
the deserted London pulpits. "While God was consuming the
people by this judgment, and the Nonconformists were labouring
to save their souls, the parliament, which sat at Oxford, was
busy in making an act [called the Five Mile Act] to render
their case incomparably harder than it was before, by putting
upon them a certain oath ['that it is not lawful, upon any
pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king,' &c.],
which, if they refused, they must not come (unless upon the
road) within five miles of any city or corporation, any place
that sent burgesses to parliament, any place where they had
been ministers, or had preached after the act of oblivion. …
When this act came out, those ministers who had any
maintenance of their own, found out some place of residence in
obscure villages, or market-towns, that were not
corporations."

_E. Calamy,
The Nonconformist's Memorial,
introduction, sections 4-6._

ALSO IN:
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 3, chapters 6-9._

_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 6-7._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
and others.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The King's charter to Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1664.
The conquest of New Netherland (New York).

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1664-1665.
The first refractory symptoms in Massachusetts.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1665.
The grant of New Jersey to Carteret and Berkeley.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1665-1666.
War with Holland renewed.
The Dutch fleet in the Thames.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
The Triple Alliance with Holland and Sweden against Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
The secret Catholicism and the perfidy of the King.
His begging of bribes from Louis XIV.
His betrayal of Holland.
His breaking of the Triple Alliance.

In 1668, the royal treasury being greatly embarrassed by the
king's extravagances, an attempt was made "to reduce the
annual expenditure below the amount of the royal income. …
But this plan of economy accorded not with the royal
disposition, nor did it offer any prospect of extinguishing
the debt. Charles remembered the promise of pecuniary
assistance from France in the beginning of his reign; and,
though his previous efforts to cultivate the friendship of
Louis had been defeated by an unpropitious course of events,
he resolved to renew the experiment.
{896}
Immediately after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, Buckingham
opened a negotiation with the duchess of Orleans, the king's
sister, in France, and Charles, in his conversations with the
French resident, apologised for his conduct in forming the
triple alliance, and openly expressed his wish to enter into a
closer union, a more intimate friendship, with Louis. …
About the end of the year the communications between the two
princes became more open and confidential; French money, or
the promise of French money, was received by the English
ministers; the negotiation began to assume a more regular
form, and the most solemn assurances of secrecy were given,
that their real object might be withheld from the knowledge,
or even the suspicion, of the States. In this stage of the
proceedings Charles received an important communication from
his brother James. Hitherto that prince had been an obedient
and zealous son of the Church of England; but Dr. Heylin's
History of the Reformation had shaken his religious credulity,
and the result of the inquiry was a conviction that it became
his duty to reconcile himself with the Church of Rome. He was
not blind to the dangers to which such a change would expose
him; and he therefore purposed to continue outwardly in
communion with the established church, while he attended at
the Catholic service in private. But, to his surprise, he
learned from Symonds, a Jesuit missionary, that no
dispensation could authorise such duplicity of conduct: a
similar answer was returned to the same question from the
pope; and James immediately took his resolution. He
communicated to the king in private that he was determined to
embrace the Catholic faith; and Charles without hesitation
replied that he was of the same mind, and would consult with
the duke on the subject in the presence of lord Arundell, lord
Arlington, and Arlington's confidential friend, sir Thomas
Clifford. … The meeting was held in the duke's closet.
Charles, with tears in his eyes, lamented the hardship of
being compelled to profess a religion which he did not
approve, declared his determination to emancipate himself from
this restraint, and requested the opinion of those present, as
to the most eligible means of effecting his purpose with
safety and success. They advised him to communicate his
intention to Louis, and to solicit the powerful aid of that
monarch. Here occurs a very interesting question,—was Charles
sincere or not? … He was the most accomplished dissembler in
his dominions; nor will it be any injustice to his character
to suspect that his real object was to deceive both his
brother and the king of France. … Now, however, the secret
negotiation proceeded with greater activity; and lord
Arundell, accompanied by sir Richard Bellings, hastened to the
French court. He solicited from Louis the present of a
considerable sum, to enable the king to suppress any
insurrection which might be provoked by his intended
conversion, and offered the co-operation of England in the
projected invasion of Holland, on the condition of an annual
subsidy during the continuation of hostilities." On the advice
of Louis, Charles postponed, for the time being, his intention
to enter publicly the Romish church and thus provoke a
national revolt; but his proposals were otherwise accepted,
and a secret treaty was concluded at Dover, in May, 1670,
through the agency of Charles' sister, Henrietta, the duchess
of Orleans, who came over for that purpose. "Of this treaty,
… though much was afterwards said, little was certainly
known. All the parties concerned, both the sovereigns and the
negotiators, observed an impenetrable secrecy. What became of
the copy transmitted to France is unknown; its counterpart was
confided to the custody of sir Thomas Clifford, and is still
in the keeping of his descendant, the lord Clifford of
Chudleigh. The principal articles were:

1. That the king of England should publicly profess himself
a Catholic at such time as should appear to him most
expedient, and subsequently to that profession should join
with Louis in a war against the Dutch republic at such time
as the most Christian king should judge proper.

2. That to enable the king of England to suppress any
insurrection which might be occasioned by his conversion,
the king of France should grant him an aid of 2,000,000 of
livres, by two payments, one at the expiration of three
months, the other of six months, after the ratification of
the treaty, and should also assist him with an armed force
of 6,000 men, if … necessary. …

4. That if, eventually, any new rights on the Spanish
monarchy should accrue to the king of France, the king of
England should aid him with all his power in the
acquisition of those rights. 5. That both princes should
make war on the united provinces, and that neither should
conclude peace or truce with them without the advice and
consent of his ally.".

_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter 6._

ALSO IN:
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11._

_O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 16._

_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 2 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.
The Cabal.

"It was remarked that the committee of council, established
for foreign affairs, was entirely changed; and that Prince
Rupert, the Duke of Ormond, Secretary Trevor, and Lord-keeper
Bridgeman, men in whose honour the nation had great
confidence, were never called to any deliberations. The whole
secret was intrusted to five persons, Clifford, Ashley
[afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury], Buckingham, Arlington, and
Lauderdale. These men were known by the appellation of the
Cabal, a word which the initial letters of their names
happened to compose. Never was there a more dangerous ministry
in England, nor one more noted for pernicious counsels."

_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter. 65 (volume 6)._

See, also, CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.
The Declaration of Indulgence and the Test Act.

"It would have been impossible to obtain the consent of the
party in the Royal Council which represented the old
Presbyterians, of Ashley or Lauderdale or the Duke of
Buckingham, to the Treaty of Dover. But it was possible to
trick them into approval of a war with Holland by playing on
their desire for a toleration of the Nonconformists. The
announcement of the King's Catholicism was therefore deferred.
… His ministers outwitted, it only remained for Charles to
outwit his Parliament. A large subsidy was demanded for the
fleet, under the pretext of upholding the Triple Alliance, and
the subsidy was no sooner granted than the two Houses were
adjourned.
{897}
Fresh supplies were obtained by closing the Exchequer, and
suspending—under Clifford's advice—the payment of either
principal or interest on loans advanced to the public
treasury. The measure spread bankruptcy among half the
goldsmiths of London; but it was followed in 1672 by one yet
more startling—the Declaration of Indulgence. By virtue of
his ecclesiastical powers, the King ordered 'that all manner
of penal laws on matters ecclesiastical against whatever sort
of Nonconformists or recusants should be from that day
suspended,' and gave liberty of public worship to all
dissidents save Catholics, who were allowed to practice their
religion only in private houses. … The Declaration of
Indulgence was at once followed by a declaration of war
against the Dutch on the part of both England and France. …
It was necessary in 1673 to appeal to the Commons [for war
supplies], but the Commons met in a mood of angry distrust.
… There was a general suspicion that a plot was on foot for
the establishment of Catholicism and despotism, and that the
war and the Indulgence were parts of the plot. The change of
temper in the Commons was marked by the appearance of what was
from that time called the Country party, with Lords Russell
and Cavendish and Sir William Coventry at its head—a party
which sympathized with the Nonconformists, but looked on it as
its first duty to guard against the designs of the Court. As to
the Declaration of Indulgence, however, all parties in the
House were at one. The Commons resolved 'that penal statutes
in matters ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by consent
of Parliament,' and refused supplies till the Declaration was
recalled. The King yielded; but the Declaration was no sooner
recalled than a Test Act was passed through both Houses
without opposition, which required from everyone in the civil
and military employment of the State the oaths of allegiance
and supremacy, a declaration against transubstantiation, and a
reception of the sacrament according to the rites of the
Church of England. Clifford at once counseled resistance, and
Buckingham talked flightily about bringing the army to London,
but Arlington saw that all hope of carrying the 'great plan'
through was at an end, and pressed Charles to yield. …
Charles sullenly gave way. No measure has ever brought about
more startling results. The Duke of York owned himself a
Catholic, and resigned his office as Lord High Admiral. …
Clifford, too, … owned to being a Catholic, and … laid
down his staff of office. Their resignation was followed by
that of hundreds of others in the army and the civil service
of the Crown. … The resignations were held to have proved
the existence of the dangers which the Test Act had been
passed to meet. From this moment all trust in Charles was at
an end."

_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, section 3._

"It is very true that the [Test Act] pointed only at
Catholics, that it really proposed an anti-Popish test, yet
the construction of it, although it did not exclude from
office such Dissenters as could occasionally conform, did
effectually exclude all who scrupled to do so. Aimed at the
Romanists, it struck the Presbyterians. It is clear that, had
the Nonconformists and the Catholics joined their forces with
those of the Court, in opposing the measure, they might have
defeated it; but the first of these classes for the present
submitted to the inconvenience, from the horror which they
entertained of Popery, hoping, at the same time, that some
relief would be afforded for this personal sacrifice in the
cause of a common Protestantism. Thus the passing of an Act,
which, until a late period, inflicted a social wrong upon two
large sections of the community, is to be attributed to the
course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the
sufferers."

_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 3, chapter 11._

ALSO IN:
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 8, and volume 5, chapter 1._

_J. Collier,
Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
part 2, book 9 (volume 8)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1674.
Alliance with Louis XIV. of France in war with Holland.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1673.
Loss of New York, retaken by the Dutch.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1674.
Peace with the Dutch.
Treaty of Westminster.
Recovery of New York.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1675-1688.
Concessions to France in Newfoundland.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
The Popish Plot.

"There was an uneasy feeling in the nation that it was being
betrayed, and just then [August, 1678] a strange story caused
a panic throughout all England. A preacher of low character,
named Titus Oates, who had gone over to the Jesuits, declared
that he knew of a plot among the Catholics to kill the king
and set up a Catholic Government. He brought his tale to a
magistrate, named Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, and shortly
afterwards [October 17] Godfrey was found murdered in a ditch
near St. Pancras Church. The people thought that the Catholics
had murdered him to hush up the 'Popish plot,' and when
Parliament met a committee was appointed to examine into the
matter. Some papers belonging to a Jesuit named Coleman
alarmed them, and so great was the panic that an Act was
passed shutting out all Catholics, except the Duke of York,
from Parliament. After this no Catholic sat in either House
for a hundred and fifty years. But worse followed. Oates
became popular, and finding tale-bearing successful, he and
other informers went on to swear away the lives of a great
number of innocent Catholics. The most noted of these was Lord
Stafford, an upright and honest peer, who was executed in
1681, declaring his innocence. Charles laughed among his
friends at the whole matter, but let it go on, and
Shaftesbury, who wished to turn out Lord Danby, did all he
could to fan the flame."

_A. B. Buckley,
History of England for Beginners,
chapter 19._

"The capital and the whole nation went mad with hatred and
fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose something of
their edge, were sharpened anew. Everywhere justices were
busied in searching houses and seizing papers. All the gaols
were filled with Papists. London had the aspect of a city in a
state of siege. The train bands were under arms all night.
Preparations were made for barricading the great
thoroughfares. Patroles marched up and down the streets.
Cannon were planted round Whitehall. No citizen thought
himself safe unless he carried under his coat a small flail
loaded with lead to brain the Popish assassins."

_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter. 2 (volume 1)._

{898}

"It being expected that printed Bibles would soon become rare,
or locked up in an unknown tongue, many honest people, struck
with the alarm, employed themselves in copying the Bible into
short-hand that they might not be destitute of its
consolations in the hour of calamity. … It was about the
year 1679 that the famous King's Head Club was formed, so
named from its being held at the King's Head Tavern in Fleet
Street. … They were terrorists and spread alarm with great
effect. It was at this club that silk armour, pistol proof,
was recommended as a security against assassination at the
hands of the Papists; and the particular kind of
life-preserver of that day, called a Protestant flail, was
introduced."

_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 5 (volume 1)._

"And now commenced, before the courts of justice and the upper
house, a sombre prosecution of the catholic lords Arundel,
Petre, Stafford, Powis, Bellasis, the Jesuits Coleman,
Ireland, Grieve, Pickering, and, in succession, all who were
implicated by the indefatigable denunciations of Titus Oates
and Bedloe. Unhappily, these courts of justice, desiring, in
common with the whole nation, to condemn rather than to
examine, wanted neither elements which might, if strictly
acted upon, establish legal proof of conspiracy against some
of the accused, nor terrible laws to destroy them when found
guilty. And it was here that a spectacle, at first imposing,
became horrible. No friendly voice arose to save those men who
were guilty only of impracticable wishes, of extravagant
conceptions. The king, the duke of York, the French
ambassador, thoroughly acquainted as they were with the real
nature of these imputed crimes, remained silent; they were
thoroughly cowed."

_A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
part 1, chapter 4._

"Although, … upon a review of this truly shocking
transaction, we may be fairly justified … in imputing to the
greater part of those concerned in it, rather an extraordinary
degree of blind credulity than the deliberate wickedness of
planning and assisting in the perpetration of legal murders;
yet the proceedings on the popish plot must always be
considered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation,
in which king, parliament, judges, juries, witnesses,
prosecutors, have all their respective, though certainly not
equal, shares."

_C. J. Fox,
History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
introduction, ch._

"In this dreadful scene of wickedness, it is difficult not to
assign the pre-eminence of guilt to Anthony Ashley Cooper,
earl of Shaftesbury. If he did not first contrive, he
certainly availed himself of the revelations of Oates, to work
up the nation to the fury which produced the subsequent
horrors. … In extenuation of the delusion of the populace,
something may be offered. The defamation of half a century had
made the catholics the objects of protestant odium and
distrust: and these had been increased by the accusation,
artfully and assiduously fomented, of their having been the
authors of the fire of the city of London. The publication,
too, of Coleman's letters, certainly announced a considerable
activity in the catholics to promote the catholic religion;
and contained expressions, easily distorted to the sense, in
which the favourers of the belief of the plot wished them to
be understood. Danby's correspondence, likewise, which had
long been generally known, and was about this time made
public, had discovered that Charles was in the pay of France.
These, with several other circumstances, had inflamed the
imaginations of the public to the very highest pitch. A
dreadful something (and not the less dreadful because its
precise nature was altogether unknown), was generally
apprehended. … For their supposed part in the plot, ten
laymen and seven priests, one of whom was seventy, another
eighty, years of age, were executed. Seventeen others were
condemned, but not executed. Some died in prison, and some
were pardoned. On the whole body of catholics the laws were
executed with horrible severity."

_C. Butler,
Historical Memoirs of the English Catholics,
chapter 32, section 3 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapter 89 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (May).
The Habeas Corpus Act.

"Arbitrary imprisonment is a grievance which, in some degree,
has place in almost every government, except in that of Great
Britain; and our absolute security from it we owe chiefly to
the present Parliament; a merit which makes some atonement for
the faction and violence into which their prejudices had, in
other particulars, betrayed them. The great charter had laid
the foundation of this valuable part of liberty; the petition
of right had renewed and extended it; but some provisions were
still wanting to render it complete, and prevent all evasion
or delay from ministers and judges. The act of habeas corpus,
which passed this session, served these purposes. By this act
it was prohibited to send anyone to a prison beyond sea. No
judge, under severe penalties, must refuse to any prisoner a
writ of habeas corpus, by which the gaoler was directed to
produce in court the body of the prisoner (whence the writ has
its name), and to certify the cause of his detainer and
imprisonment. If the gaol lie within twenty miles of the
judge, the writ must be obeyed in three days; and so
proportionably for greater distances; every prisoner must be
indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to
trial in the subsequent term. And no man, after being enlarged
by order of court, can be recommitted for the same offence."

_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 67 (volume 6)._

"The older remedies serving as a safeguard against unlawful
imprisonment, were—

1. The writ of Mainprise, ensuring the delivery of the accused
to a friend of the same, who gave security to answer for his
appearance before the court when required, and in token of
such undertaking he held him by the hand ('le prit par le
main').

2. The writ 'De odio et atiâ,' i. e., of hatred and malice,
which, though not abolished, has long since been antiquated.
… It directed the sheriff to make inquisition in the county
court whether the imprisonment proceeded from malice or not.
…

3. The writ 'De homine replegiando,' or replevying a man, that
is, delivering him out on security to answer what may be
objected against him.

A writ is, originally, a royal writing,
either an open patent addressed to all to whom it may come,
and issued under the great seal; or, 'litteræ clausæ,' a
sealed letter addressed to a particular person; such writs
were prepared in the royal courts or in the Court of Chancery.
The most usual instrument of protection, however, against
arbitrary imprisonment is the writ of 'Habeas corpus,' so
called from its beginning with the words, 'Habeas corpus ad
subjiciendum,' which, on account of its universal application
and the security it affords, has, insensibly, taken precedence
of all others.
{899}
This is an old writ of the common law, and must be prayed for
in any of the Superior courts of common law. … But this writ
… proved but a feeble, or rather wholly ineffectual
protection against the arbitrary power of the sovereign. The
right of an English subject to a writ of habeas corpus, and to
a release from imprisonment unless sufficient cause be shown
for his detention, was fully canvassed in the first years of
the reign of Charles I. … The parliament endeavoured to
prevent such arbitrary imprisonment by passing the 'Petition
of Right,' which enacted that no freeman, in any such manner
… should be imprisoned or detained. Even this act was found
unavailing against the malevolent interpretations put by the
judges; hence the 16 Charles I., c. 10, was passed, which
enacts, that when any person is restrained of his liberty by
the king in person, or by the Privy Council, or any member
thereof, he shall, on demand of his counsel, have a writ of
habeas corpus, and, three days after the writ, shall be
brought before the court to determine whether there is ground
for further imprisonment, for bail, or for his release.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the immunity of English
subjects from arbitrary detention was not ultimately
established in full practical efficiency until the passing of
the statute of Charles II., commonly called the 'Habeas Corpus
Act.'"

_E. Fischel,
The English Constitution,
book 1, chapter 9._

ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England,
book 3, chapter 8._

_H. J. Stephen,
Commentaries,
book 5, chapter 12, section 5 (volume 4)._

The following is the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679:

I. Whereas great Delays have been used by Sheriffs, Gaolers
and other Officers, to whose Custody any of the King's
Subjects have been committed, for criminal or supposed
criminal Matters, in making Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus
to them directed, by standing out an Alias and Pluries Habeas
Corpus, and sometimes more, and by other Shifts, to avoid
their yielding Obedience to such Writs, contrary to their
Duty, and the known Laws of the Land, whereby many of the
King's Subjects have been, and hereafter may be long detained
in Prison, in such cases where by Law they are bailable, to
their great Charges and Vexation.

II. For the Prevention whereof, and the more speedy Relief of
all Persons imprisoned for any such Criminal, or supposed
Criminal Matters: (2.) Be it Enacted by the King's most
Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the Authority thereof, that
whensoever any Person or Persons shall bring any Habeas Corpus
directed unto any Sheriff, or Sheriffs, Gaoler, Minister, or
other Person whatsoever, for any Person in his or their
Custody, and the said Writ shall be served upon the said
Officer, or left at the Gaol or Prison, with any of the under
Officers, under Keepers, or Deputy of the said Officers or
Keepers, that the said Officer or Officers, his or their Under
Officers, Under Keepers or Deputies, shall within three Days
after the Service thereof, as aforesaid (unless the Commitment
aforesaid were for Treason or Felony, plainly and specially
expressed in the Warrant of Commitment), upon Payment or
Tender of the Charges of bringing the said Prisoner, to be
ascertained by the Judge or Court that awarded the same, and
endorsed upon the said Writ, not exceeding Twelve-pence per
Mile, and upon Security given by his own Bond, to pay the
Charges of carrying back the Prisoner, if he shall be remanded
by the Court or Judge, to which he shall be brought, according
to the true Intent of this present Act, and that he will not
make any Escape by the way, make Return of such Writ. (3.) And
bring or cause to be brought the Body of the Party so
committed or restrained, unto or before the Lord Chancellor,
or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England for the time
being, or the Judges or Barons of the said Court from whence
the said Writ shall Issue, or unto and before such other
Person or Persons before whom the said Writ is made
returnable, according to the Command thereof. (4.) And shall
then likewise certifie the true causes of his Detainer, or
Imprisonment, unless the commitment of the said party be in
any place beyond the Distance of twenty Miles from the Place
or Places where such Court or Person is, or shall be residing;
and if beyond the Distance of twenty Miles, and not above One
Hundred Miles, then within the Space of Ten Days, and if
beyond the Distance of One Hundred Miles, then within the
space of Twenty Days, after such Delivery aforesaid, and not
longer.

III. And to the Intent that no Sheriff, Gaoler or other
Officer may pretend Ignorance of the Import of any such Writ,
(2.) Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all such
Writs shall be marked in this manner, Per Statutum Tricesimo
Primo Caroli Secundi Regis, and shall be signed by the Person
that awards the same. (3.) And if any Person or Persons shall
be or stand committed or detained, as aforesaid, for any
Crime, unless for Felony or Treason, plainly expressed in the
Warrant of Commitment, in the Vacation-time, and out of Term,
it shall and may be lawful to and for the Person or Persons so
committed or detained (other than Persons convict, or in
Execution by legal Process) or anyone on his or their Behalf,
to appeal, or complain to the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
or anyone of His Majesty's Justices, either of the one Bench,
or of the other, or the Barons of the Exchequer of the Degree
of the Coif. (4.) And the said Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper,
Justices, or Barons, or any of them, upon View of the Copy or
Copies of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment and Detainer,
or otherwise upon Oath made, that such Copy or Copies were
denied to be given by such Person or Persons in whose custody
the Prisoner or Prisoners is or are detained, are hereby
authorized and required, upon Request made in Writing by such
Person or Persons, or any on his, her, or their Behalf,
attested and subscribed by two Witnesses, who were present at
the Delivery of the same, to award and grant an Habeas Corpus
under the Seal of such Court, whereof he shall then be one of
the Judges, (5.) to be directed to the Officer or Officers in
whose Custody the Party so committed or detained shall be,
returnable immediate before the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord
Keeper, or such Justice, Baron, or any other Justice or Baron,
of the Degree of the Coif, of any of the said Courts. (6.) And
upon Service thereof as aforesaid, the Officer or Officers,
his or their under Officer or under Officers, under Keeper or
under Keepers, or their Deputy, in whose Custody the Party is
so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively
before limited, bring such Prisoner or Prisoners before the
said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or such Justices, Barons,
or one of them, before whom the said Writ is made returnable,
and in case of his Absence, before any of them, with the
Return of such Writ, and the true Causes of the Commitment and
Detainer.
{900}
(7.) And thereupon within two Days after the Party shall be
brought before them the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
or such Justice or Baron, before whom the Prisoner shall be
brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said Prisoner from
his Imprisonment, taking his or their Recognizance, with one
or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum, according to their
Discretions, having regard to the Quality of the Prisoner, and
Nature of the Offence, for his or their Appearance in the
Court of King's Bench the Term following, or at the next
Assizes, Sessions, or general Gaol-Delivery, of and for such
County, City or Place, where the Commitment was, or where the
Offence was committed, or in such other Court where the said
Offence is properly cognizable, as the Case shall require, and
then shall certify the said Writ with the Return thereof, and
the said Recognizance or Recognizances into the said Court,
where such Appearance is to be made. (8.) Unless it shall
appear unto the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or
Justice, or Justices, or Baron or Barons, that the Party so
committed is detained upon a legal Process, Order, or Warrant
out of some Court that hath Jurisdiction of Criminal Matters,
or by some Warrant signed and sealed with the Hand and Seal of
any of the said Justices or Barons, or some Justice or
Justices of the Peace, for such Matters or Offences, for the
which by the Law, the Prisoner is not bailable.

IV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person
shall have wilfully neglected by the Space of two whole Terms
after his Imprisonment to pray a Habeas Corpus for his
Enlargement, such Person so wilfully neglecting, shall not
have any Habeas Corpus to be granted in Vacation-time in
Pursuance of this Act.

V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That
if any Officer or Officers, his or their under Officer, or
under Officers, under Keeper or under Keepers, or Deputy,
shall neglect or refuse to make the Returns aforesaid, or to
bring the Body or Bodies of the Prisoner or Prisoners,
according to the Command of the said Writ, within the
respective times aforesaid, or upon Demand made by the
Prisoner, or Person in his Behalf, shall refuse to deliver, or
within the Space of six Hours after Demand shall not deliver,
to the Person so demanding, a true Copy of the Warrant or
Warrants of Commitment and Detainer of such Prisoner, which he
and they are hereby required to deliver accordingly; all and
every the Head Gaolers and Keepers of such Prisons, and such
other Person, in whose Custody the Prisoner shall be detained,
shall for the first Offence, forfeit to the Prisoner, or Party
grieved, the Sum of One Hundred Pounds. (2.) And for the
second Offence, the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds, and shall and
is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said Office.
(3.) The said Penalties to be recovered by the Prisoner or
Party grieved, his Executors or Administrators, against such
Offender, his Executors or Administrators, by any Action of
Debt, Suit, Bill, Plaint or Information, in any of the King's
Courts at Westminster, wherein no Essoin, Protection,
Priviledge, Injunction, Wager of Law, or stay of Prosecution,
by Non vult ulterius prosequi, or otherwise, shall be admitted
or allowed, or any more than one Imparlance. (4.) And any
Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of any Party grieved, shall
be a sufficient Conviction for the first Offence; and any
after Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of a Party grieved, for
any Offence after the first Judgment, shall be a sufficient
Conviction to bring the Officers or Person within the said
Penalty for the Second Offence.

VI. And for the Prevention of unjust Vexation, by reiterated
Commitments for the same offence; (2.) Be it enacted by the
Authority aforesaid, That no Person or Persons, which shall be
delivered or set at large upon any Habeas Corpus, shall at any
time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same
Offence, by any Person or Persons whatsoever, other than by
the legal Order and Process of such Court wherein he or they
shall be bound by Recognizance to appear, or other Court
having Jurisdiction of the Cause. (3.) And if any other Person
or Persons shall knowingly, contrary to this Act, recommit or
imprison, or knowingly procure or cause to be recommitted or
imprisoned for the same Offence, or pretended Offence, any
Person or Persons delivered or set at large as aforesaid, or
be knowingly aiding or assisting therein, then he or they
shall forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of
Five Hundred Pounds; any colourable Pretence or Variation in
the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment notwithstanding, to be
recovered as aforesaid.

VII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if any
Person or Persons shall be committed for High Treason or
Felony, plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of
Commitment, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court the
first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer
and Terminer, or general Gaol Delivery, to be brought to his
Tryal, shall not be indicted sometime in the next Term,
Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery after
such Commitment, it shall and may be lawful to and for the
Judges of the Court of King's Bench, and Justices of Oyer and
Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, and they are hereby
required, upon Motion to them made in open Court the last Day
of the Term, Sessions or Gaol-Delivery, either by the
Prisoner, or anyone in his Behalf, to set at Liberty the
Prisoner upon Bail, unless it appear to the Judges and
Justices upon Oath made, that the Witnesses for the King could
not be produced the same Term, Sessions, or general
Gaol-Delivery. (2.) And if any Person or Persons committed as
aforesaid, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court, the
first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer
and Terminer, and general Gaol-Delivery, to be brought to his
Tryal, shall not be indicted and tryed the second Term,
Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, after
his Commitment, or upon his Tryal shall be acquitted, he shall
be discharged from his Imprisonment.

VIII. Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall extend
to discharge out of Prison, any Person charged in Debt, or
other Action, or with Process in any Civil Cause, but that
after he shall be discharged of his Imprisonment for such his
criminal Offence, he shall be kept in Custody, according to
the Law for such other Suit.

{901}

IX. Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That if any Person or Persons, Subjects of this
Realm, shall be committed to any Prison, or in Custody of any
Officer or Officers whatsoever, for any Criminal or supposed
Criminal Matter, that the said Person shall not be removed
from the said Prison and Custody, into the Custody of any
other Officer or Officers. (2.) Unless it be by Habeas Corpus,
or some other legal Writ; or where the Prisoner is delivered
to the Constable or other inferiour Officer, to carry such
Prisoner to some common Gaol. (3.) Or where any Person is sent
by Order of any Judge of Assize, or Justice of the Peace, to
any common Workhouse, or House of Correction. (4.) Or where
the Prisoner is removed from one Prison or Place to another
within the same County, in order to his or her Tryal or
Discharge in due Course of Law. (5.) Or in case of sudden
Fire, or Infection, or other Necessity. (6.) And if any Person
or Persons shall after such Commitment aforesaid, make out and
sign, or countersign, any Warrant or Warrants for such Removal
aforesaid, contrary to this Act, as well he that makes or
signs, or countersigns, such Warrant or Warrants, as the
Officer or Officers, that obey or execute the same, shall
suffer & incur the Pains & Forfeitures in this Act
before-mentioned, both for the 1st & 2nd Offence,
respectively, to be recover'd in manner aforesaid, by the
Party grieved.

X. Provided also, and be it further enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for any
Prisoner & Prisoners as aforesaid, to move, and obtain his or
their Habeas Corpus, as well out of the High Court of
Chancery, or Court of Exchequer, as out of the Courts of
King's Bench, or Common Pleas, or either of them. (2.) And if
the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or any Judge or
Judges, Baron or Barons for the time being, of the Degree of
the Coif, of any of the Courts aforesaid, in the Vacation
time, upon view of the Copy or Copies of the Warrant or
Warrants of Commitment or Detainer, or upon Oath made that
such Copy or Copies were denied as aforesaid, shall deny any
Writ of Habeas Corpus by this Act required to be granted,
being moved for as aforesaid, they shall severally forfeit to
the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds,
to be recovered in manner aforesaid.

XI. And be it declared and enacted by the Authority aforesaid,
That an Habeas Corpus according to the true Intent and meaning
of this Act, may be directed, and run into any County
Palatine, the Cinque Ports, or other priviledged Places,
within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of
Berwick upon Tweed, and the Isles of Jersey or Guernsey, any
Law or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

XII. And for preventing illegal Imprisonments in Prisons
beyond the Seas; (2.) Be it further enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That no Subject of this Realm that now is, or
hereafter shall be, an Inhabitant or Resiant of this Kingdom
of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed,
shall or may be sent Prisoner into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey,
Guernsey, Tangier, or into Parts, Garrisons, Islands, or
Places beyond the Seas, which are, or at any time hereafter
shall be within or without the Dominions of his Majesty, his
Heirs or Successors. (3.) And that every such Imprisonment is
hereby enacted and adjudged to be illegal. (4.) And that if
any of the said Subjects now is, or hereafter shall be so
imprisoned, every such Person and Persons so imprisoned, shall
and may for every such Imprisonment, maintain by Virtue of
this Act, an Action or Actions of False Imprisonment, in any
of his Majesty's Courts of Record, against the Person or
Persons by whom he or she shall be so committed, detained,
imprisoned, sent Prisoner or transported, contrary to the true
meaning of this Act, and against all or any Person or Persons,
that shall frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any
Warrant or Writing for such Commitment, Detainer, Imprisonment
or Transportation, or shall be advising, aiding or assisting
in the same, or any of them. (5.) And the Plaintiff in every
such Action, shall have judgment to recover his treble Costs,
besides Damages; which Damages so to be given, shall not be
less than Five Hundred Pounds. (6.) In which Action, no Delay,
Stay, or Stop of Proceeding, by Rule, Order or Command, nor no
Injunction, Protection, or Priviledge whatsoever, nor any more
than one Imparlance shall be allowed, excepting such Rule of
the Court wherein the Action shall depend, made in open Court,
as shall be thought in justice necessary, for special Cause to
be expressed in the said Rule. (7.) And the Person or Persons
who shall knowingly frame, contrive, write, seal or
countersign any Warrant for such Commitment, Detainer, or
Transportation, or shall so commit, detain, imprison, or
transport any Person or Persons contrary to this Act, or be
any ways advising, aiding or assisting therein, being lawfully
convicted thereof, shall be disabled from thenceforth to bear
any Office of Trust or Profit within the said Realm of
England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, or
any of the Islands, Territories or Dominions thereunto
belonging. (8.) And shall incur and sustain the Pains,
Penalties, and Forfeitures, limited, ordained, and Provided in
and by the Statute of Provision and Premunire made in the
Sixteenth Year of King Richard the Second. (9.) And be
incapable of any Pardon from the King, his Heirs or
Successors, of the said Forfeitures, Losses, or Disabilities,
or any of them.

XIII. Provided always, That nothing in this Act shall extend
to give Benefit to any Person who shall by Contract in
Writing, agree with any Merchant or Owner, of any Plantation,
or other Person whatsoever, to be transported to any part
beyond the Seas, and receive Earnest upon such Agreement,
altho' that afterwards such Person shall renounce such
Contract.

XIV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person or
Persons, lawfully convicted of any Felony, shall in open Court
pray to be transported beyond the Seas, and the Court shall
think fit to leave him or them in Prison for that Purpose,
such Person or Persons may be transported into any Parts
beyond the Seas; This Act, or any thing therein contained to
the contrary notwithstanding.

XV. Provided also, and be it enacted, That nothing herein
contained, shall be deemed, construed, or taken to extend to
the Imprisonment of any Person before the first Day of June,
One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy and Nine, or to any thing
advised, procured, or otherwise done, relating to such
Imprisonment; Any thing herein contained to the contrary
notwithstanding.

{902}

XVI. Provided also, That if any Person or Persons, at any time
resiant in this Realm, shall have committed any Capital
Offence in Scotland or Ireland, or any of the Islands, or
foreign Plantations of the King, his Heirs or Successors,
where he or she ought to be tryed for such Offence, such
Person or Persons may be sent to such Place, there to receive
such Tryal, in such manner as the same might have been used
before the making this Act; Any thing herein contained to the
contrary notwithstanding.

XVII. Provided also, and be it enacted, That no Person or
Persons, shall be sued, impleaded, molested or troubled for
any Offence against this Act, unless the Party offending be
sued or impleaded for the same within two Years at the most
after such time wherein the Offence shall be committed, in
Case the Party grieved shall not be then in Prison; and if he
shall be in Prison, then within the space of two Years after
the Decease of the Person imprisoned, or his, or her Delivery
out of Prison, which shall first happen.

XVIII. And to the Intent no Person may avoid his Tryal at the
Assizes, or general Gaol Delivery, by procuring his Removal
before the Assizes at such time as he cannot be brought back
to receive his Tryal there; (2.) Be it enacted, That after the
Assizes proclaimed for that County where the Prisoner is
detained, no Person shall be removed from the Common Gaol upon
any Habeas Corpus granted in pursuance of this Act, but upon
any such Habeas Corpus shall be brought before the Judge of
Assize in open Court, who is thereupon to do what to Justice
shall appertain.

XIX. Provided nevertheless, That after the Assizes are ended,
any Person or Persons detained may have his or her Habeas
Corpus, according to the Direction and Intention of this Act.

XX. And be it also enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if
any Information, Suit or Action, shall be brought or exhibited
against any Person or Persons, for any Offence committed or to
be committed against the Form of this Law, it shall be lawful
for such Defendants to plead the general Issue, that they are
not guilty, or that they owe nothing, and to give such special
Matter in Evidence to the Jury, that shall try the same, which
Matter being pleaded, had been good and sufficient matter in
Law to have discharged the said Defendant or Defendants
against the said Information, Suit or Action, and the said
Matter shall be then as available to him or them, to all
Intents and Purposes, as if he or they had sufficiently
pleaded, set forth, or alleged the same Matter in Bar, or
Discharge of such Information, Suit or Action.

XXI. And because many times Persons charged with Petty-Treason
or Felony, or as Accessaries thereunto, are committed upon
Suspicion only, whereupon they are bailable or not, according
as the Circumstances making out that Suspicion are more or
less weighty, which are best known to the Justices of Peace
that committed the Persons, and have the Examinations before
them, or to other Justices of the Peace in the County; (2.) Be
it therefore enacted, That where any Person shall appear to be
committed by any Judge, or Justice of the Peace, and charged
as necessary before the Fact, to any Petty-Treason or Felony,
or upon Suspicion thereof, or with Suspicion of Petty-Treason
or Felony, which Petty-Treason or Felony, shall be plainly and
specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, that such
Person shall not be removed or bailed by Virtue of this Act,
or in any other manner than they might have been before the
making of this Act.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).
The Meal-tub Plot.

"Dangerfield, a subtle and dexterous man, who had gone through
all the shapes and practices of roguery, and in particular was
a false coiner, undertook now to coin a plot for the ends of
the papists. He … got into all companies, and mixed with the
hottest men of the town, and studied to engage others with
himself to swear that they had been invited to accept of
commissions, and that a new form of government was to be set
up, and that the king and the royal family were to be sent
away. He was carried with this story, first to the duke, and
then to the king, and had a weekly allowance of money, and was
very kindly used by many of that side; so that a whisper run
about town, that some extraordinary thing would quickly break
out: and he having some correspondence with one colonel
Mansel, he made up a bundle of seditious but ill contrived
letters, and laid them in a dark corner of his room: and then
some searchers were sent from the custom house to look for
some forbidden goods, which they heard were in Mansel's
chamber. There were no goods found: but as it was laid, they
found that bundle of letters: and upon that a great noise was
made of a discovery: but upon inquiry it appeared the letters
were counterfeited, and the forger of them was suspected; so
they searched into all Dangerfield's haunts, and in one of
them they found a paper that contained the scheme of this
whole fiction, which, because it was found in a meal-tub, came
to be called the meal-tub plot. … This was a great disgrace
to the popish party, and the king suffered much by the
countenance he had given him."

_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 3, 1679._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1679-1681.
The Exclusion Bill.