Heretics were burnt on five occasions in the reign of Elizabeth, and twice in the following reign. But the popular compassion exhibited on the last of these occasions was so great that it was thought expedient not to carry into effect the sentence which had been passed on a third offender. And in 1667 the writ de hæretico comburendo was at length abolished by statute. Religious opinions were, however, now taken notice of by the State in another mode. Before the Reformation, with a few inconsiderable exceptions, all the individuals of the community had professed one religious belief and belonged to one religious body, the Church of England, which was then like the Continental churches, though not to the same extent, subject to the paramount authority of the Papal See; and sectaries were liable to the penalties attaching to heresy, so that there was no occasion to impose upon them any civil disabilities in addition. But when the Church of England became reformed and reconstituted in the reigns of Hen. 8 and his son and younger daughter, and when the sovereign and the mass of the nation cast off the yoke of Rome, a certain portion of the people remained attached to the old order of things, while another portion were for making still more radical alterations in religious matters than were in fact accomplished. In those times the prac

tice of resorting to political means in order to produce religious changes in a nation was considered both proper and efficacious; and no doubt in some cases it proved to be successful. The general adoption of this practice rendered it necessary for a government, like our own, which was then looked upon as one of the mainstays of Protestantism, to protect itself against the political intrigues of its own Roman Catholic subjects, by debarring them from civil offices, the holding of which might give them an opportunity of endangering or at least harassing the

existing form of government. It is important, therefore, to bear in mind that the restrictions which were at this time placed upon Roman Catholics and afterwards upon Protestant Nonconformists, whatever may be thought of their expediency, were imposed on political grounds, and were upon those grounds perfectly justifiable. We find, in fact, that their severity was increased or diminished in proportion to the activity or otherwise of the agents of the Papacy, and notably of the Jesuits, in intriguing against the government of the country. In the first place, the stas. 1 Eliz. c. 1, and 5 Eliz. c. 1, required the oath of supremacy, to the effect that the queen was supreme both in ecclesiastical and in temporal matters (to the former part of which a Roman Catholic was of course unable to assent), to be taken by every lay as well as ecclesiastical officer, and every person in receipt of a salary from the crown; also by graduates of the universities and all persons in any way connected with the law. Only temporal peers were exempt, the queen being "otherwise sufficiently assured of the faith and loyalty of the temporal lords of her high court of parliament." The many acts of the same reign inflicting penalties on non-attendance at the services of the Church of England, were directed alike against Protestant and Popish Nonconformists; but it is not surprising that in the following reign the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot should have led to measures of special severity against the latter. They were made liable to forfeit all their goods and two-thirds of their lands to the king; were debarred from certain trades and professions, and from being executors, administrators, or guardians; and were forbidden to possess arms or ammunition. Their marriage or burial, and the baptism of their children, except in the parish church, was strictly prohibited. And the fear of Popish tendencies being im

bibed on the continent, led to a general prohibition of any children being sent abroad without special license. One reasonable enactment made at this time is still law, namely, that which, in the case of a Roman Catholic having the patronage of a benefice, forbids him to exercise it, and gives the appointment to one of the two universities (3 Ja. 1, c. 5). During the Commonwealth Cromwell professed to allow freedom of worship to all except Papists and Prelatists, declaring "that none be compelled to conform to the public religion, by penalties or otherwise.” He extended toleration even to the Jews, who were permitted to return to the kingdom after having been banished since Edw. 1's reign. But he was sometimes led, by political considerations, into severe measures against Episcopalians whether of the Church of England or of that of Rome. After the Restoration the predominant church party indulged in stern retaliation for the treatment they had received during the Commonwealth. The Corporation Act (13 Cha. 2, st. 2, c. 1) imposed the reception of the sacrament as a condition for holding any municipal office. At the same time a new Act of Uniformity (14 Cha. 2, c. 4) was passed, which prohibited all deviations from the prescribed forms of prayer in churches, and obliged all persons in orders, and all schoolmasters and others engaged in tuition, to make a declaration that it was not lawful on any pretence to take up arms against the king; that they abjured the Solemn League and Covenant; and that they would conform to the liturgy of the Church of England. This was followed by Acts for suppressing seditious con venticles, which inflicted imprisonment, and upon a third conviction, seven years' transportation, on persons above the age of 16 who should be present at any religious meeting held otherwise than in accordance with the regulations of the Church of England (16 Cha. 2, c. 4; 22

Cha. 2, c. 1). The Five Mile Act (17 Cha. 2, c. 2) went further, and required all Nonconforming ministers or preachers to take an oath devised four years previously, to the effect that it was not lawful on any pretence to take up arms against the king, and that they would never attempt any alteration of the government in Church or State. Those who did not take this oath were forbidden to come within 5 miles of any parliamentary borough. And all Nonconformists alike were declared incapable of being schoolmasters, or of teaching in schools. Finally, the Test Act (25 Cha. 2, c. 2) though, as its title stated, it was primarily designed "for preventing dangers which might happen from Popish recusants," and though it was with that view actually promoted by the Protestant Dissenters, yet, by imposing the reception of the sacrament as a requisite for holding any office civil or military, or receiving any pay from the Crown, excluded these latter as well as Roman Catholics from all public posts. And a few years later members of both houses of Parliament, as well as the royal servants, were required to subscribe a declaration against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints (30 Cha. 2, st. 2), and thus Roman Catholic peers were disabled from sitting in the House of Lords and excluded from the king's presence. The arbitrary assumption of prerogative by James II. in dispensing with these laws against Roman Catholics and Dissenters in individual instances, and in suspending some of their provisions altogether by the Declaration of Indulgence, constituted one of his chief violations of the fundamental laws of the kingdom which were formally condemned at the Revolution.

Liberty of the Subject.-In other respects, great advances were made during the 17th century towards securing the personal liberty of the subject against stretches of the royal prerogative or of the power of the

government. The Petition of Right (3 Cha. 1, c. 1) recited that, contrary to the Great Charter and to an Act of Edw. 3, divers of the king's subjects had of late been imprisoned without any cause shown; and that when for their deliverance they were brought before the king's justices by writ of habeas corpus, and their keepers commanded to certify the causes of their detainer, no cause was shown but that they were detained by the king's special command signified by the lords of the privy council, and yet they were returned back to prison without being charged with anything to which they might make answer according to the law; and it prayed that no freeman, in any such manner as was before mentioned, should be imprisoned or detained. And in 1640 it was enacted that, if any person was thereafter committed or imprisoned by order of any Court pretending to have the jurisdiction of the Star Chamber, or by command and warrant of the sovereign in person, or of the privy council or any of its members, he should at once on application to the judges of the King's Bench or Common Pleas have a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the person in whose custody he was, to bring him into court, and certify the cause of his imprisonment; and the judges should liberate, bail, or remand the prisoner according to the circumstances (16 Cha. 1, c. 10, s. 6). The method of vindicating liberty by means of a writ of habeas corpus was rendered more efficacious in 1679 by st. 31 Cha. 2, c. 2, which is commonly known as the Habeas Corpus Act. This Act required that the sheriff or other officer to whose custody any person was committed should, upon receiving a writ of habeas corpus, bring up the person before the court or judge specified in the writ, within a limited period, varying from three to twenty days according to the distance to be traversed. It directed the Lord