What do you think?
Rate this book
Liberty Against the Law: Some Seventeenth-Century Controversies
In the plays and popular folklore of the 17th and 18th centuries are many expressions of liberty against the there are the colorful beggars of "The Jovial Crew" who are no worse than the eminent politicians; the ballads of Robin Hood personify the opposition between the freedom of the outlaw in the woods and the status constraints on the society man. Christopher Hill considers how the peasantry was effected by enclosures, the loss of many traditional rights, and draconian punishments for minor transgressions. These expressions of contempt for the law challenge the equation of law with property and begin to pose the question, "Freedom for Whom?" Wrote Keith Thomas in The Guardian , "Hill must have read more of the literature written in and about 17-century England than anyone who has ever lived. He misses nothing."
354 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1996
33 people are currently reading
237 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Hill
177 books93 followersJohn Edward Christopher Hill was the pre-eminent historian of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English history, and one of the most distinguished historians of recent times. Fellow historian E.P. Thompson once referred to him as the dean and paragon of English historians.
He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford. During World War II, he served in the Russian department of the British Foreign Office, returning to teach at Oxford after the war.
From 1958-1965 he was University Lecturer in 16th- and 17th-century history, and from 1965-1978 he was Master of Balliol College. He was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and of the British Academy. He received numerous honorary degrees over the course of his career, including the Hon. Dr. Sorbonne Nouvelle in 1979.
Hill was an active Marxist and a member of the Communist Party from approximately 1934-1957, falling out with the Party after the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprisings of 1956.
In their obituary, The Guardian wrote of Hill:
"Christopher Hill…was the commanding interpreter of 17th-century England, and of much else besides.…it was as the defining Marxist historian of the century of revolution, the title of one of the most widely studied of his many books, that he became known to generations of students around the world. For all these, too, he will always be the master." [http://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/...]
He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford. During World War II, he served in the Russian department of the British Foreign Office, returning to teach at Oxford after the war.
From 1958-1965 he was University Lecturer in 16th- and 17th-century history, and from 1965-1978 he was Master of Balliol College. He was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and of the British Academy. He received numerous honorary degrees over the course of his career, including the Hon. Dr. Sorbonne Nouvelle in 1979.
Hill was an active Marxist and a member of the Communist Party from approximately 1934-1957, falling out with the Party after the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprisings of 1956.
In their obituary, The Guardian wrote of Hill:
"Christopher Hill…was the commanding interpreter of 17th-century England, and of much else besides.…it was as the defining Marxist historian of the century of revolution, the title of one of the most widely studied of his many books, that he became known to generations of students around the world. For all these, too, he will always be the master." [http://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/...]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
June 15, 2025
The author reviews the way in which the tenants, the landless, the religiously excluded, and those who lived outside the law in seventeenth-century England viewed those who ruled over them, both by means of the law and by the use of force. To achieve this he analyses the plays, poetry, political literature and folklore of the time.
The strength of the volume varies a little between subjects. After the Introduction, Section Two moves on to Lawlessness: vagabonds, the working poor, Robin Hood, poachers, smugglers, pirates, highwaymen, and gypsies. It has a lighter touch to the narrative and the hand of left wing political opinion is not quite so firmly applied as can sometimes be the case with Christopher Hill.
In Section Three: Imperial Problems, Hill extends out into the early British Empire, especially North America. I felt it was too short to really do justice to the subject. The use of Shakespeare's Tempest to show the British attitude to native peoples and colonization is fairly well trodden but there is an interesting section on impressment in the Royal Navy.
Section Four: Christian Liberty moves more firmly into Hill's academic homeland dealing with The Ambiguities of Protestantism; Church Court and Fees; Marriage and Parish Registers; The Mosaic Law and the Priesthood of All Believers; and Antinomianism. Just as one can have hard science fiction these essays are hard, or perhaps traditional, historical scholarship concentrating on the move towards non-conformism and sectarianism in the Church.
In Section Five: Society, Law and Liberty, there is a more stringent socialist approach as lawyers and the application of a potentially corrupt legal system used against those too poor to avoid or evade prosecution is examined – critically.
Finally, in Section Six: Aftermath, there are a series of more detailed essays. Three of which, Gerrard Winstanley: The Law of Freedom, The Society of Friends and the Law, and John Clare, 1793-1864 are perhaps the most interesting sections of the book as they look at more individual stories of liberty: Gerrard Winstanley and the Digger movement; the Quakers and their use of the Law to protect themselves; and the sad life of the poet – and environmentalist - John Clare.
It looks as if it should be a challenging read, but Christopher Hill's elegant style and immense understanding of his subject turns it into a smooth and comfortable journey.
The strength of the volume varies a little between subjects. After the Introduction, Section Two moves on to Lawlessness: vagabonds, the working poor, Robin Hood, poachers, smugglers, pirates, highwaymen, and gypsies. It has a lighter touch to the narrative and the hand of left wing political opinion is not quite so firmly applied as can sometimes be the case with Christopher Hill.
In Section Three: Imperial Problems, Hill extends out into the early British Empire, especially North America. I felt it was too short to really do justice to the subject. The use of Shakespeare's Tempest to show the British attitude to native peoples and colonization is fairly well trodden but there is an interesting section on impressment in the Royal Navy.
Section Four: Christian Liberty moves more firmly into Hill's academic homeland dealing with The Ambiguities of Protestantism; Church Court and Fees; Marriage and Parish Registers; The Mosaic Law and the Priesthood of All Believers; and Antinomianism. Just as one can have hard science fiction these essays are hard, or perhaps traditional, historical scholarship concentrating on the move towards non-conformism and sectarianism in the Church.
In Section Five: Society, Law and Liberty, there is a more stringent socialist approach as lawyers and the application of a potentially corrupt legal system used against those too poor to avoid or evade prosecution is examined – critically.
Finally, in Section Six: Aftermath, there are a series of more detailed essays. Three of which, Gerrard Winstanley: The Law of Freedom, The Society of Friends and the Law, and John Clare, 1793-1864 are perhaps the most interesting sections of the book as they look at more individual stories of liberty: Gerrard Winstanley and the Digger movement; the Quakers and their use of the Law to protect themselves; and the sad life of the poet – and environmentalist - John Clare.
It looks as if it should be a challenging read, but Christopher Hill's elegant style and immense understanding of his subject turns it into a smooth and comfortable journey.
February 6, 2017
In Early Modern England justice was at war with property; property emerged victorious. Christopher Hill asks the questions 'whose law?' and 'whose liberty?' The loosely structured series of essays explore a common theme: how the rise of Parliament and the rule of law masked the cold-blooded seizure of power by the upper classes, people who thought liberty was synonymous with property.
Paupers faced being whipped out of town. Poor villagers entitled to grazing on common lands became totally dependent on wages when landlords enclosed those acres. The commons had helped foster a way of life free of the market and offered insurance against destitution.
The 17th century--here essentially from the death of Elizabeth to the mid-18th century have been described as England's golden age and for most the propertied classes it was golden indeed. Enclosure of commons, fens and forests led to increased production of food, sheep and wool for the clothing industry. Expanding trade led to increased customs revenues which nearly paid for the navy without increasing taxes, a navy necessary for protecting trade routes and making war on (especially) the French and subduing recalcitrant native peoples, all necessary to create the British Empire.
The wealth of the empire was based on slavery and the employment of slave labor in the West Indies and North America and the conquest and exploitation of the Indian sub-continent. It necessitated destruction of customary rights of the poor, with entire villages "depopulated" in the interests of large scale production. These customs were abrogated by acts of Parliament, the representative assembly of the gentry while the poor were "legislated against".
Outlaws, beggars and vagabonds correctly saw the law as the enemy, while what Hill calls "godly nonconformists" felt it their duty to break the law in some circumstances. Only the gentry and the better off merchants were satisfied with the law--about 20 percent of the population, although many historians have treated Parliament as representative of the all the people. It wasn't. The questions that Hill raises are "Who makes the law" and "Liberty for whom to do what". Liberty was for the ruling class to have secure ownership of property and guaranteed opportunities for acquiring more. This required subordination of the lower classes, by force if necessary but more preferably by convincing them that they have as much freedom compatible with the good of society and the will of God. However for the peasantry in the 17th century freedom meant custom, the security of livelihood at a relatively low economic level--the law aimed at turning the masses of peasants off the soil and into wage labor to produce wealth for their employers and their country although not for themselves. Since they were not represented in Parliament laws were tailored to this proletarianization of the countryside.
"Liberty Against the Law" is an excellent book. Hill knew the long seventeenth century as well as anyone--his card catalog was legendary and his work habits daunting to those who disagreed with him. Well worth reading, although it is not a unified history as such but a group of related essays. Hill's strength is as an essayist which comes through on page after page.
Paupers faced being whipped out of town. Poor villagers entitled to grazing on common lands became totally dependent on wages when landlords enclosed those acres. The commons had helped foster a way of life free of the market and offered insurance against destitution.
The 17th century--here essentially from the death of Elizabeth to the mid-18th century have been described as England's golden age and for most the propertied classes it was golden indeed. Enclosure of commons, fens and forests led to increased production of food, sheep and wool for the clothing industry. Expanding trade led to increased customs revenues which nearly paid for the navy without increasing taxes, a navy necessary for protecting trade routes and making war on (especially) the French and subduing recalcitrant native peoples, all necessary to create the British Empire.
The wealth of the empire was based on slavery and the employment of slave labor in the West Indies and North America and the conquest and exploitation of the Indian sub-continent. It necessitated destruction of customary rights of the poor, with entire villages "depopulated" in the interests of large scale production. These customs were abrogated by acts of Parliament, the representative assembly of the gentry while the poor were "legislated against".
Outlaws, beggars and vagabonds correctly saw the law as the enemy, while what Hill calls "godly nonconformists" felt it their duty to break the law in some circumstances. Only the gentry and the better off merchants were satisfied with the law--about 20 percent of the population, although many historians have treated Parliament as representative of the all the people. It wasn't. The questions that Hill raises are "Who makes the law" and "Liberty for whom to do what". Liberty was for the ruling class to have secure ownership of property and guaranteed opportunities for acquiring more. This required subordination of the lower classes, by force if necessary but more preferably by convincing them that they have as much freedom compatible with the good of society and the will of God. However for the peasantry in the 17th century freedom meant custom, the security of livelihood at a relatively low economic level--the law aimed at turning the masses of peasants off the soil and into wage labor to produce wealth for their employers and their country although not for themselves. Since they were not represented in Parliament laws were tailored to this proletarianization of the countryside.
"Liberty Against the Law" is an excellent book. Hill knew the long seventeenth century as well as anyone--his card catalog was legendary and his work habits daunting to those who disagreed with him. Well worth reading, although it is not a unified history as such but a group of related essays. Hill's strength is as an essayist which comes through on page after page.
September 3, 2012
Nicely done look at the ways "law"--- the establishment after 1640 of what would later become a Whig view of liberty: absolute property rights, judicial supremacy over custom, the elevation of the idea of the nation as built on the propertied classes ---crushed much of what was thought of by the rural poor as their liberty to use the commons, to have a claim to village and parish relief, to avoid being subjected to wage-labour that reduced them to someone's else's tools.
Hill looks at vagabonds, beggars, religious dissidents, pirates, and sailors as well as cottagers in the countryside--- at groups whose customary freedoms or small-scale democratic cultures are crushed by Law. While the second half of the book, which looks largely at religious groups, does seem less strongly connected to the earlier chapters than one might wish, and while Hill doesn't treat how the rural poor and the urban working and beggar classes might have differed in their view of customary liberties, he does present a welcome counterpoint to the celebration of "English liberty" post-1640 and post-1688.
Hill looks at vagabonds, beggars, religious dissidents, pirates, and sailors as well as cottagers in the countryside--- at groups whose customary freedoms or small-scale democratic cultures are crushed by Law. While the second half of the book, which looks largely at religious groups, does seem less strongly connected to the earlier chapters than one might wish, and while Hill doesn't treat how the rural poor and the urban working and beggar classes might have differed in their view of customary liberties, he does present a welcome counterpoint to the celebration of "English liberty" post-1640 and post-1688.
June 1, 2014
A really excellent look at the conflict between liberty and law in the 17th-century. I had been hesitant to read this because of the author's Marxism and my fear of being hammered over the head with his politics. But it is not until the conclusions that Hill's political opinions become explicit. We will leave aside the issue of how much of this conflict is still present and not just a historical artifact though it is clear where Hill's opinion lays.
This packs an amazing amount of material in a rather compact book. Some of the things he covers are highwaymen, Robin Hood, pirates, gypsies, game laws, impressment, etc.
“So if our first question is ‘Who makes the law?’, the second must be, “Liberty for whom to do what?’ Our answer to the first question is factual—a minority of the upper propertied class; the answer to the second is similar: liberty for the ruling class to have secure ownership of property and guaranteed opportunities for acquiring more.” 325
This packs an amazing amount of material in a rather compact book. Some of the things he covers are highwaymen, Robin Hood, pirates, gypsies, game laws, impressment, etc.
“So if our first question is ‘Who makes the law?’, the second must be, “Liberty for whom to do what?’ Our answer to the first question is factual—a minority of the upper propertied class; the answer to the second is similar: liberty for the ruling class to have secure ownership of property and guaranteed opportunities for acquiring more.” 325
August 24, 2009
A great discussion of the shifting meaning of liberty and freedom in Civil War era Great Britain. Through reading popular culture and other sources, Hill effectively charts the impact of the rise of capitalism in Britain, looking at its impact upon various outsider groups (pirates, vagabonds, highwaymen etc.).
November 15, 2024
It’s quite common these days for people to try and understand current affairs in Britain through the prism of pre-WW2 Germany or 20th century US domestic affairs but if they really want to understand how capitalism works and the class structure of British society, they would be better off spending time reading about 17th century England and the Civil War (or War of the 3 Kingdoms as it’s now also called).
Have you ever considered where English peasantry went? Most other European cultures had them, some still do. England peasantry, however, is consigned to history. Gradually, bit by bit, the rich turned landowning peasants off the land using the laws they made, enclosed it and turned peasants into wage labourers. By the time John Clare was writing his laments for land lost through Enclosure, the work was done. Prisons and workhouses now stood where peasants cottages once did. Laws protected property above all else.
The other strand that runs through history that cannot be ignored is Christianity, specifically Protestantism. In a country where many people now profess no religion, it can be hard to imagine a world where the guiding principles of living were set by the Bible and a belief in God. There are some that argue that Puritanism is alive and well in 21st century Britain but God is no longer the driving force.
Christopher Hill, a Marxist historian of the 17th century, delves into the poetry, prose and plays of this time to identify those who resisted the rule of law: the lawless poor such as poachers, pirates and vagabonds; the dissenters such as the Quakers or the Diggers. He looks at how they defied the law and what people thought of this and finally explores how gradually much of the 17th century is, in the 18th century absorbed into conformity beginning with Charles II and his religious tolerance.
Here in the 21st century that time seems far away, a time of barbarous law and inequality, there was no great battle with the AntiChrist for our souls - the battle become a personal one. “Some propertied protestants now had less reason to fear Antichrist in Rome than they had to fear the indiscipline of the lower classes at home.” Even Proto-Communists like Winstanley accepted that some laws were necessary. There are however two questions raised that might be useful even today:
1. Who makes the law?
2. Liberty for whom to do what?
In other words, whose interests are the lawmakers serving? And what exactly do the laws proposed allow and for whom? I don’t think you need to be a Leveller to acknowledge these are useful questions to ask.
Have you ever considered where English peasantry went? Most other European cultures had them, some still do. England peasantry, however, is consigned to history. Gradually, bit by bit, the rich turned landowning peasants off the land using the laws they made, enclosed it and turned peasants into wage labourers. By the time John Clare was writing his laments for land lost through Enclosure, the work was done. Prisons and workhouses now stood where peasants cottages once did. Laws protected property above all else.
The other strand that runs through history that cannot be ignored is Christianity, specifically Protestantism. In a country where many people now profess no religion, it can be hard to imagine a world where the guiding principles of living were set by the Bible and a belief in God. There are some that argue that Puritanism is alive and well in 21st century Britain but God is no longer the driving force.
Christopher Hill, a Marxist historian of the 17th century, delves into the poetry, prose and plays of this time to identify those who resisted the rule of law: the lawless poor such as poachers, pirates and vagabonds; the dissenters such as the Quakers or the Diggers. He looks at how they defied the law and what people thought of this and finally explores how gradually much of the 17th century is, in the 18th century absorbed into conformity beginning with Charles II and his religious tolerance.
Here in the 21st century that time seems far away, a time of barbarous law and inequality, there was no great battle with the AntiChrist for our souls - the battle become a personal one. “Some propertied protestants now had less reason to fear Antichrist in Rome than they had to fear the indiscipline of the lower classes at home.” Even Proto-Communists like Winstanley accepted that some laws were necessary. There are however two questions raised that might be useful even today:
1. Who makes the law?
2. Liberty for whom to do what?
In other words, whose interests are the lawmakers serving? And what exactly do the laws proposed allow and for whom? I don’t think you need to be a Leveller to acknowledge these are useful questions to ask.
February 24, 2018
I haven't read Liberty Against the Law, and won't until I learn more from reviewers (though I had to give it at least one star in order to ask a question of readers).
Has Christopher Hill written a balanced history? Has he told readers of all the decent land-owners, squires, and Parliamentarians as well as the many villainous ones? From the reviews I read, I think not. Hearing both sides enriches my understanding. A careful selection of information that persuades readers to the writer’s beliefs can paint a whole class in one colour. That’s not interesting to me.
Take just the 1660s in English history. According to https://www.historyonthenet.com/engli... For the Parliamentary side were Puritans, the more militant Members of Parliament, merchants, the richer areas of the South and East.
I no more like the controllers of wealth and freedom than I think Hill does. But I do like to read balance.
Has Christopher Hill written a balanced history? Has he told readers of all the decent land-owners, squires, and Parliamentarians as well as the many villainous ones? From the reviews I read, I think not. Hearing both sides enriches my understanding. A careful selection of information that persuades readers to the writer’s beliefs can paint a whole class in one colour. That’s not interesting to me.
Take just the 1660s in English history. According to https://www.historyonthenet.com/engli... For the Parliamentary side were Puritans, the more militant Members of Parliament, merchants, the richer areas of the South and East.
I no more like the controllers of wealth and freedom than I think Hill does. But I do like to read balance.
January 12, 2019
For the era where rights and liberties began to emerge and the constitutional contours of a nation began to sharpen and shape up- this is a fascinating insight into some of the key controversies in this century. Rich in detail.
May 30, 2013
A great literary history of the ideas of liberty, freedom, "the people" surrounding The British Civil War, and how these have extended into today. Originally wanted to read Hill's "The World Turned Upside Down" but local library didn't have a copy, am glad this was there though. Would have given 5 stars except Hill's style is at times jolting as he moves from ideas and persons. Also, his stringing together of quotes and topics looses coherence as his thesis is lost and found throughout the various chapters (it felt like it was actually a bunch of separate essays edited together quickly).
Read
December 20, 2014Quite an interesting piece of research which indicates the rule of law as we know it has not been so universal as thought and oligarchic systems have quite been the norm
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews