Sparks Commentary: Actually, William Blackstone DID mention the 1689 Bill of Rights (sorry Wikipedia)

Note: There is a difference between the old and new styles of calendar, which will become relevant to our discussion.

Some Wikipedia articles are reliable, while others are not (and others are somewhere in between)

So I've often enjoyed reading articles from Wikipedia, and have linked to a number of these articles from my own blog over the years. Some of these articles are reliable, while others are not. Many of them are somewhere in between. Possibly one of these articles to be somewhere in between is the article about William Blackstone, which contained some good information about William Blackstone, and some bad information. For example, the "Criticism" section of that page said that “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories.[132] Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” (Source: "William Blackstone" page, "Criticism" section)

Jeremy Bentham

According to Wikipedia, some have claimed that Blackstone “omitted” the 1689 Bill of Rights

The part about how “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories” is properly sourced at the “[132]”. While I don't agree with Bentham's criticisms (indeed, I find them wildly inaccurate), I do agree that he was “a critic of Blackstone's theories” – this much is pretty well-established, and that is all that the source claims here. But the second sentence has no source, which makes me wonder who exactly is making these criticisms. The sentence in question says that “Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” Blackstone did mention both the “Constitutions of Clarendon” and the “Tractatus of Glanville” in his magnum opus, the "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (as I show in another blog post). And most relevantly, he also mentioned the “1689 Bill of Rights,” which these critics would know if they had bothered to read the very first chapter of the very first book of the “Commentaries.”

Jeremy Bentham

A difference between the old and new styles of calendar is relevant here …

In fairness to these critics, Blackstone dated the “Bill of Rights” to 1688 (rather than 1689). But this seems to be because of a difference between the Old Style Calendar and the New Style Calendar. Wikipedia's page on the “Bill of Rights 1689” has a section entitled “Date and title” that explains this difference. Quoting from this section, it says that “The Bill of Rights is commonly dated in legal contexts to 1688. This convention arises from the legal fiction (prior to the passage of the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793) that an Act of Parliament came into force on the first day of the session in which it was passed. The Bill was therefore deemed to be effective from 13 February 1689 (New Style), or, under the Old Style calendar in use at the time, 13 February 1688. Under the Short Titles Act 1896, the Bill was given the official short title of 'The Bill of Rights', without a calendar year suffix.[19]” (Source: "Bill of Rights 1689" page, "Date and title" section)

Sir William Blackstone

… because it caused Blackstone to date the Bill of Rights to 1688 (rather than 1689)

By modern standards, the 1688 date is thus a “legal fiction”; but under the Old Style calendar, Blackstone was quite correct (as this Wikipedia page shows). With that in mind, here is a quote from the “Commentaries” mentioning the document that we now call the “1689 Bill of Rights”:

Sir William Blackstone

Nonetheless, Blackstone did mention the “1689 Bill of Rights,” as shown by this quotation …

“To these succeeded the BILL OF RIGHTS, or declaration delivered by the lords and commons to the prince and princess of Orange 13 February 1688 ; and afterwards enacted in parliament, when they became king and queen : which declaration concludes in these remarkable words ; 'and they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premises, as their 'undoubted rights and liberties.' ' And the act of parliament itself l recognizes 'all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration to be the true, ancient, and 'indubitable rights of the people of this kingdom.' ' ”

– William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” Book 1, Chapter 1

Statue of Sir William Blackstone

... and this quotation

There is another such quote, from the very last chapter of the very last book. Here is the quote: “From the revolution in 1688 to the present time. In this period many laws have passed; as the bill of rights, the toleration-act, the act of settlement with its conditions, the act for uniting England with Scotland, and some others” (Source: Book 4, Chapter 33). He then proceeds to mention some of the others. But the relevant part of the passage above is that “From the revolution in 1688 to the present time ... In this period many laws have passed; as the bill of rights.”

Sir William Blackstone

Thus, Blackstone didn't “omit” it

Thus, the argument that the 1689 Bill of Rights was among some “particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted” is demonstrably false - Blackstone didn't “omit” them at all.

1689 Bill of Rights

One gets the feeling that these critics never actually read the “Commentaries”

If Blackstone's critics had bothered to read the very first chapter of the very first book of the “Commentaries,” they would have thus seen their argument debunked. But one gets the feeling that they never made it past the introduction to the “Commentaries” (if they even bothered to read that), and contented themselves with judging the book from a few short extracts. Blackstone also mentioned the Constitutions of Clarendon and the Tractatus of Glanville, the other two legal (or semi-legal) documents that he is here erroneously accused of "omitt[ing]." For evidence that he also mentioned these latter documents, see this blog post.

Disclaimer: If Wikipedia has changed either of these pages by the time that you read this, some of this information may have become outdated. If so, please let me know with a comment below; and I will be happy to either remove or revise this blog post as needed. In the meantime, I will leave this blog post up as a response to Wikipedia, and hope that someone at Wikipedia corrects this rather gross and egregious error.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

Wikipedia has some more bad information about William Blackstone

Hamilton quoted from Blackstone's "Commentaries" in the Federalist Papers

How did Sir Edward Coke influence Sir William Blackstone?

The primary function of government is to protect our most basic rights

There are some rights that exist mainly to protect other rights

Part of a series about

Sir William Blackstone

An overview of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”

The primary function of government is to protect our most basic rights
Hamilton quoted from Blackstone when discussing the Habeas Corpus Act

Wikipedia has some bad information about William Blackstone

Actually, William Blackstone DID mention the 1689 Bill of Rights