Haarlem is a typical Dutch town. The branches of the Spaarne and an extensive system of canals bring the shiptraffic into the heart of it, and turn its streets into so many quays. The roadways are paved with bricks; the houses have gable-ends with old-fashioned crow-steps; and everything wears a decent and quiet aspect, which to one man is dulness and to another “aristocratic gravity and modest coquetry.” What the city lacks in liveliness it makes up by the interest of its historical associations and the number of its scientific and artistic institutions. The great market place especially has much that is worth seeing: the town-house and the cathedral of St Bavo; the old meat market, a building of the end of the 16th century in the old Dutch style; the stadsdoelen, or place where in former times the burgesses used to assemble in arms; and the statue erected to Koster in 1856, when in Holland he was still generally considered the inventor of printing. St Bavo’s is one of the most famous churches in the Netherlands. It is a cruciform structure completed in 1538, and makes a considerable impression on the spectator by the great length (about 426 feet) of its main axis and the height and steepness of the roof. The tower is about 255 feet high. Within the lofty vaulting is supported by twenty very light columns, and there is a good deal of beauty about the perspective of its aisles. The organ, built by Christian Muller of A msterdam between 1735 and 1738, was for some time the largest in the world, and is still celebrated for the sweetness of its tone, especially in the vox humana stop. It possesses four key-boards, 64 stops, and 5000 pipes, the largest of which is 15 inches in diameter. Among the monuments in the church are those of Bilderdijk the poet and the hydraulic engineers Christiaan Brünings and Fredrik William Conrad, the latter the projector of the sluices at Katwijk. In the belfry are the damiaatjes, small bells presented to the town according to tradition by William I., the conqueror of Damietta. At the head of the scientific institutions of Haarlem may be placed the Dutch society of sciences (HoUandsche Maatschappij van Wetenschappeη) founded in 1752, which possesses very valuable collections in botany, natural history, and geology. Teyler’s foundation (Teyler’s Stichting), instituted in accordance with the last will of Pietre Teyler van der Hulst for the study of theology, natural philosophy, poetry, history, drawing, and numismatics, has various auxiliary collections in the founder’s former residence, The Dutch society of industry, founded in 1777, is still active and flourishing, with branches established all over the country. In 1871 it instituted a colonial museum, which along with the royal museum of modern art is accommodated in the pavilion formerly the residence of an Amsterdam banker, Hope, and acquired for the crown by King Louis Napoleon. The colonial museum presents a complete survey of the manifold products of the Dutch possessions in the East Indian Archipelago, and the royal mueeum lias a collection of 250 pictures. Among the benevolent institutions of the city it is enough to mention the hospital for old men founded in 1608, and the beautiful Teyler’s Hospital.

The staple industries of Haarlem have been greatly modified in the course of time. Under the counts of Holland cloth-weaving and brewing were in a very thriving condition; but under Charles V. they lost enormously in importance. While 2000 pieces of cloth had been manufactured annually in the end of the 15th century, 800 or 900 was the number for 1515; and the breweries diminished from 120 in 1494 to 95 in 1503, and by 1513 were no more than 77. After the revocation of the edict of Nantes, silk, lace, anl damask-weaving were introduced by French refugees, and in course of time these industries gave employment to 10,000 of the population. About the close of the 18th century this remarkable prosperity was a thing of the past; and it was not till after the Belgian revolution that Haarlem began to turn its attention to the various departments of manufacture in which it is now engaged. Cotton factories, carriage-works, bleach-works, cotton and silk dye-works, a famous type-foundry, oil-works, soap-works, breweries, and a factory for preserved meats are among the more important establishments. The extensive workshops of the Dutch railway company are also of value to the town. One of the printing establishments has the reputation of being the oldest in the Netherlands, and publishes the oldest Dutch paper, De Opragte Haarlemmer Courant. As market gardening, especially in the flower department, is largely carried on in the immediate vicinity, Haarlem is the seat of a flourishing trade in “Dutch roots,” especially in hyacinths, tulips, fritillaries, spiraeas, and japυnicas. A considerable business is also done in the butter, cheese, and other agricultural produce from the surrounding country.

Though the population of Haarlem has been steadily increasing since the beginning of the present century, it has not become so great as it was in the 17th. In 1570 the total was 20,772 souls, of whom 1836 were Dutchmen capable of bearing arms, 1215 Englishmen and Frenchmen, 1856 Germans, and 15,865 women and children. By 1622 it had increased to 39,455. A rapid decline took place in the 18th century; from 26,281 in 1748 the number sank to 21,227 in 1796, and by 1815 it was not more than 17,432. Seven years later we find 18,453 inhabitants, 21,667 in 1830, 24,012 in 1840, 25,852 in 1850, and 27,534 in 1860. The year 1874 showed 32,758, and three years later the number was no less than 35,692. In 1869 -1870 there were 14,471 members of the Dutch Reformed Communion, 11,574 Roman Catholics, and 565 Jews.

Haarlem is mentioned in a register of the 10th century as Haralem. From Count William II. it obtained a charter in 1245, andin the course of the following centuries it rapidly advanced in prosperity. In 1492 the insurgents called the “bread and cheese folk” got possession of the town, but before the year was out it was recovered by the imperial general Duke Albert of Saxony. The year 1493 was witness of a great conflagration, and in 1509 the plague claimed its many victims. In 1559 Haarlem became a bishop’s see. The prominent part that its inhabitants took in the revolt of the Netherlands brought upon it an unparalleled disaster. Don Frederick son of the duke of Alva invested the town with 30,000 men in December 1573, and after a siege, in which the burghers defended themselves with admirable and pertinacious heroism, it was obliged to capitulate in July 1573. The conquerors, in spite of their promise of mercy, took barbarous vengeance, and it was not till July 1677 that the town was recovered from their grasp by the prince of Orange. In its subsequent history the main events are the inundations of 1775 and 1791, the arrival of the Prussians in 1787, and the quatercentenary celebration of the invention of printing in 1823.

See F. Allan, Geschιcdenis en beschrijving van Haarlem van de vroogste tijden tot op onze dagcn onder medewerking van Ekema, Enschede, en Geelings. Haarlem Lake, or Harlemmer Meer, a commune of the province of North Holland, constituted by the law of 16th July 1855. It has an area of about 46,000 acres, and its population has increased from 7000 in 1860 to 13,602 in 1878. As its name indicates, the commune was formerly a lake, and, according to Amersfoordt, this lake was a relic of a northern arm of the Rhine which passed through the district in the time of the Romans. In 1531 the Haarlemmer Meer had an area of 6430 acres, and in its vicinity were three smaller sheets of water—the Leid’sehe Meer or Leyden Lake, the Spieling Meer, and the Oude Meer or Old Lake—with a united area of about 7600 acres. The four lakes were ultimately incorporated into one by successive inundations, and by 1647 the new Haarlem Lake had an area of 36,400 acres, which by 1740 was increased to 42,000. As early as 1643 Jan Adriaanszoon Leeghwater proposed to endyke and drain the lake; and similar schemes, among which those of Nikolaas Samuel Cruquius in 1742 and of Baron van Lijnden van Hemmen in 1821 are worthy of special mention, were brought forward from time to time. But it was not till 1836, when one furious hurricane on the 9th of November drove the waters as far as the gates of Amsterdam, and another on the 25th of December sent them in the opposite direction to submerge the streets of Leyden, that the mind of the nation was turned seriously to the matter. In August 1837 the king appointed a royal commission of inquiry; the scheme proposed by the commission received the sanction of the second chamber in March 1839, and in the following May the necessary law was passed. The first business was to dig a canal round the lake for the reception of the water and the accommodation of the great traffic which had previously been carried on. The canal was made 38 miles in length, with a depth of 9 feet, and a width of 130 feet on the west side of the lake and 115 feet on the east side. The preliminary works were not completed till 1845. The area enclosed by the canal was rather more than 70 square miles; the average depth of the lake was 13 feet l - 44 inches; and as the water had no natural outfall it was calculated that probably 1000 million tons would have to be raised by mechanical means. A gigantic steam-engine designed by Messrs J. Gibb and A. Dean of London was erected and named in honour of Leeghwater. It could raise 112 tons at each stroke and discharge 1,000,000 tons in 25⅜ hours. The total weight of iron used for the engine, pumps, &c., was 640 tons, and the cost of the machinery and buildings amounted to £36,000. Two other engines of equal size and power were afterwards constructed by Messrs Harvey of Hayle and Messrs Fox and Co. of Perran, in Cornwall, the makers of the “Leeghwater.” Thej r were named respectively the Cruquius and the Van Lijnden. Pumping commenced in 1848, and the lake was dry by the 1st of July 1852. At the first sale of the highest lands along the banks on August 16, 1853, 784 hectares were bought for 575,000 florins, or 733 florins per hectare; but the average price afterwards was less. The whole area of 42,000 acres recovered from the waters has brought in 9,400,000 florins or about £780,000, so that the actual cost to the nation has only been 4,400,000 florins or £300,000, though the expense of the enterprise amounted to 13,787,377 florins or £1,080,000. The soil is of various kinds, loam, clay, sand, and peat; most of it is sufficiently fertile, though in the lower portions there are barren patches where the scanty vegetation is covered with an ochreous deposit. Com, seeds, cattle, butter, and cheese are the principal produce. The roads which traverse the commune are bordered by plcasant-looking farm-houses built after the varioue styles of Holland, Friesland, or Brabant. Hoofddorp, Venneperdorp or Nieuw Vennep, Abbenes, and the vicinities of the three great steam-engines arc the spots where the population has clustered most thickly. The first church was built in 1855; in 1877 there were seven. In 1854 the city of Leyden laid claim to the possession of the new territory, but the courts decided in favour of the nation.

A list of works on the Haarlem Lake is given by Gevers van Endegeest, Du dessèchement du Lac de Harlem (The Hague, 1849-1861, 3 parts, with plates). See also J. P. Amersfoordt, Het Harlemmer-meer, Haarlem, 1857, published by the Amsterdam Maatschappij Felix Meritis.

The book of Habakkuk falls into two parts,—the former of which (chaps, i. and ii.) has the inscription, “The burden which Habakkuk the prophet saw,” and the latter (chap, iii.) the inscription, “Prayer” (or hymn) “of Habakkuk on Shigyonoth.” Both parts have reference to the same subject, the invasion of Judah by the Chaldeans, who are expressly named (i. 6). In both this is regarded as a chastisement from the Lord upon the people for their sins; but whilst in the earlier part the prophet appears as a reprover and denouncer of evil, in the latter he gives utterance to emotions of reverence, confidence, and joy in God as the Saviour of His people. In the former part the prophecy is in the form of a dialogue between Jehovah and the prophet. The prophet, deeply troubled because of the corruption of his people, cries to God and asks how long such a state of things is to continue (i. 2-4); to which God replies in effect that He is about to bring on the sinful nation a heavy calamity by raising against them the Chaldeans—“that bitter and impetuous nation ”—whose fierce and terrible hosts should devastate the land,—at the same time intimating that this scourge should pass away, and that the invaders, though the instruments of God’s vengeance, should not be held guiltless (5-11). The prophet then appeals to God, the Everlasting and Holy One, and asks how the employment ofsuch instruments to inflict punishment on the people of His choice is reconcilable with the divine rectitude and unchangeableness (12-17), but declares that he will stand on his watch-tower that he may learn what God will say to him, hoping that some word of comfort may be vouchsafed to him which he may carry to his people. The word comes; the Lord will not suffer the ungodly, the transgressor, and the idolater to escape; a five-fold woe is denounced against the enemies of God’s people; the just are encouraged to abide in faith, cheered with the assurance that as a result of God’s judgments on the wicked the knowledge of the glory of the Lord shall fill the earth as the waters cover the sea; for God is in His holy temple, His purposes shall stand fast, therefore let all the earth be still and await His coming (ii. 1-20). The latter part of the book is a hymn of praise in which the prophet in his own name and that of the people celebrates the majesty and mighty deeds of the Lord, and gives exulting expression to the confidence and joy with which His true subjects rest in Him (iii. 1-19). This hymn is in form and style like one of the Psalms, and was doubtless intended for use in the temple service. To some it has appeared that· this third chapter is wholly unconnected with the two preceding. But though different in character and style, it stands closely connected in substance with what goes before, and forms with this one whole. In the former part we have the burden which the prophet had to bear to the people; in the latter we have the utterance of the feelings produced by the contemplation of the facts and revelations therein set forth, viewed in the light of God’s manifestations of Himself on behalf of His people in former times.

This book, which it is generally agreed was written by the prophet himself, forms one of the finest remains of ancient Hebrew literature. In conception and style it is not inferior to any production of the most flourishing age of prophecy. The language is pure, the thought is lofty, and in the construction artistic skill is displayed. With the mantle of the prophet the author bears also the chaplet of the poet.

At what time Habakkuk prophesied remains uncertain. From i. 5, 6, where the invasion of Israel by the Chaldeans is represented as a thing so strange as to be incredible when announced, it has been inferred that the prophecy was uttered whilst as yet the people of Israel were unacquainted with the Chaldeans as a warlike power,—long, therefore, before the battle of Carchemish (606 b.c. ), in which Neeho, king of Egypt, was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar. The date of the prophecy has accordingly by some been relegated to the reign of Manasseh; and this has been supposed to receive confirmation from the fact that during that reign there were prophets who foretold the coming on the nation of a calamity such as that the ears of all who heard of it should tingle (2 Kings xxi. 10#.); and of these prophets Habakkuk may have been one. The words of the prophet, however, do not necessarily imply that at the time he uttered his prophecy the people were so ignorant of the Chaldeans that they could not believe what he was commissioned to announce to them regarding an invasion of the country by that “bitter and hasty” nation; it is rather the immediateness and terribleness of the catastrophe which he represents as what would pass belief, even when announced by a prophet of the Lord. It is further to be observed that his words imply that the calamity be was sent to announce would happen in the days of those to whom he spoke, which could hardly be said of a generation that had reached adult age during the latter half of Manasseh’s reign, that is, fully sixty years before the invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. It may be added that it is very improbable that during the reign of Manasseh, when idolatry had to such an extent superseded the worship of Jehovah, such a psalm as that of chap. iii. would have been composed for the temple service by anyone living in Judah. A later date, it would thus appear, must be assigned to the prophecy. Vitringa has suggested that it was uttered in the time of Josiah, and this is accepted by Delitzsch and others. To this it has been objected that the state of things described in the beginning of the book does not accord with what we know to have been the state of things in Josiah’s reign, and moreover that the declaration that the calamity threatened should happen in the days of the existing generation does not tally with the assurance given by the prophetess Huldah to King Josiah, that the evil the Lord was about to bring upon Jerusalem should not happen in his day (2 Kings xxii. 15-20). Neither of these objections, however, has much weight. To the former it may be replied that, though in the later part of Josiah’s reign a better state of things than that described by the prophet prevailed, in the early part of it things were probably exactly such as he represents; and to the latter it may be replied that the two declarations are not irreconcilable, for though the invasion of the Chaldeans might happen in the time of the existing generation to whom the prophet spoke, it might be not till after the death of Josiah that Jerusalem should be taken; which in point of fact was the case. A more serious objection is that the psalm in chap. iii. could not have been composed in the early part of Josiah’s reign before the reforms which he introduced had been begun, and that the first and second chapters could not have been uttered after these had been inaugurated, because then the state of things there described did not exist. To meet this it has been suggested that the two parts of the book may have been composed at different times, the earlier part in the beginning and the later after the middle of Josiah’s reign. This is possible; but the standpoint of the prophet is in both parts so much the same that it is not probable that any marked interval of time elapsed between the composition of the two. We are, however, so imperfectly acquainted with the minuter details of the history of the times that for aught we can tell there may have been seasons during the reign of Josiah when the good and the evil in the nation were so mixed that a prophet, whilst denouncing the wickedness he saw around him, and threatening a woe on the nation because of it, might yet be inspired by the remembrance of God’s dealings with his people in the past and the hope of better things for the future to give utterance to such a strain of adoration and exultant gladness as the hymn at the close of the book presents; nor is there any reason to doubt that the pious king and such men as Hilkiah the high priest, and those associated with him as “rulers of the house of God” (2 Chrom XXXV. 8), would be so in sympathy with the prophet in this that they would readily approve of his psalm being consigned to “the chief singer” to be used in the temple service. An argument in favour of assigning the date of this prophecy to the reign of Josiah has been drawn from the numerous coincidences in sentiment and phraseology between this book and those of Jeremiah and Zephaniah (cf. Hab. i. 8 with Jer. v. 6, iv. 13, and Zeph. iii. 3; Hab. i. 13 with Jer. xii. 1; Hab. ii. 9 with Jer. xlix. 16; Hab. ii. 13 with Jer. li. 58; Hab. ii. 16 with Jer. xxv. 27; Hab. ii. 20 with Zeph. i. 7, &c. ); and if in these instances Jeremiah and Zephaniah have imitated Habakkuk or quoted from him, the argument must be held conclusive, for both these prophets began to prophesy in the later part of the reign of Josiah. De Wette, Hitzig, Ewald, Bleek, and others assign the prophecy to the reign of Jehoiakim; but for this there seems no good reason.

In Darnel’s case (3 Car. I., 1627) the judges held that the command of the king was a sufficient answer to a writ of habeas corpus. The House of Commons thereupon passed resolutions to the contrary, and after a conference with the House of Lords the measure known as the Petition of Right was passed, which, inter alia, recited that, contrary to the Great Charter and other statutes, divers of the king’s subjects had been imprisoned without any cause shown, and when they were brought up on habeas corpus, and no cause was shown other than the special command of the king signified by the privy council, were nevertheless remanded to prison, concluded “that no freeman in any such manner as is before mentioned be imprisoned or detained.” In Jenkes’s case, 1676, the lord chancellor (Lord Nottingham) refused to issue a habeas corpus in the vacation. Shortly afterwards was passed the famous Habeas Corpus Act (31 Car. II. c. 2), which is sometimes described as a consequence of the harsh if not illegal refusal of the writ in Jenkes’s case, but which, as Hallam shows, was really due to the arbitrary proceedings of Lord Clarendon. The Act itself passed the Lords after many similar measures sent up by the Commons had been rejected.

The Habeas Corpus Act recites that great delays have been used by sheriffs and jailers in making returns ol writs of habeas corpus directed to them; and for the prevention thereof, and the more speedy relief of all persons im prisoned for criminal or supposed criminal matters, it enacts in substance as follows. (1) When a writ of habeas corpus is directed to a sheriff or other person in charge of a prisoner, he must within 3, 10, or 20 days, according to the distance of the place of commitment, bring the body of his prisoner to the court, with the true cause of his detainer or imprisonment—unless the commitment was for treason or felony plainly expressed in the warrant of commitment. (2) If any person be committed for any crime—unless for treason or felony plainly expressed in the warrant—it shall be lawful for such person or persons (other than persons convicted or in execution by legal process) in time of vacation, to appeal to the lord chancellor as a judge, who shall issue a habeas corpus returnable immediately, and on the return thereof shall discharge the prisoner on giving security for his appearance before the proper court—unless the party so committed is detained upon a legal process or under a justice’s warrant for a non-bailable offence. Persons neglecting for two terms to pray for a habeas corpus shall have none in vacation. (3) Persons set at large on habeas corpus shall not be recommitted for the same offence unless by the legal order and process of the court having cognizance of the case. (4) A person committed to prison for treason or felony shall, if he requires it, in the first week of the next term or the first day of the next session of oyer and terminer, be indicted in that term or session or else admitted to bail, unless it appears on affidavit that the witnesses for the crown are not ready; and if he is not indicted and tried in the second term or session after commitment, or if after trial he is acquitted, he shall be discharged from imprisonment. (5) No inhabitant of England (except persons contracting, or, after conviction for felony, electing to be transported) shall be sent prisoner to Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, &c., or any place beyond the seas. Stringent penalties are provided for offences against the Act. A judge delaying habeas corpus forfeits £500 to the party aggrieved. Illegal imprisonment beyond seas renders the offender liable in action by the injured party with treble costs and damages to the extent of not less than £500, besides subjecting him to the penalties of praemunire and to other disabilities. “The great rank of those who were likely to offend against this part of the statute was,” says Hallam, “the cause of this unusual severity.”

The Habeas Corpus Act, it will be seen, applies only to the case of persons imprisoned on criminal charges. In 1758 the question arose whether, in the case of an impressment for military service, a habeas corpus could be applied for under the Act, and other questions of some difficulty were raised as to its effect in particular cases. The judges who were consulted by the House of Lords differed in their opinions, and ultimately the Act 56 Geo. III. c. 100 was passed, “for more effectually securing the liberty of the subject.” It enacts (1) that a writ of habeas cotpus shall be issued in vacation time in favour of a person restrained of his liberty (except persons imprisoned for debt or by civil process)—a privilege granted by the Act of Charles II. only in the case of commitments for criminal offences; (2) that though the return to the writ be good and sufficient in law, the judge shall examine into the truth of the facts set forth in such return, and if they appear doubtful the prisoner shall be bailed; (3) that the writ shall run to any harbour or road on the coast of England, although not within the body of any county. The last clause was intended to meet doubts on the applicability of habeas corpus in cases of illegal detention on board ship.

In Anderson’s case, in 1861, the Court of Queen’s Bench decided somewhat reluctantly that the writ runs to all the foreign dominions of the crown even when there are independent local judicatures. In consequence of this decision the Act 25 and 26 Vict. c. 20 was passed, enacting that “no writ of habeas corpus shall issue out of England, by authority of any judge or court of justice therein, into any colony or foreign dominion of the crown where her Majesty has a lawfully established court or courts of justice, having authority to grant and issue the said writ, and to ensure the due execution thereof throughout such colony or dominion.”

In times of public danger it has been found necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act by a special statute. This was done in 1817 by the Act empowering the king to secure and detain such persons as his Majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his person and government. More recently this extreme measure has been judged necessary in the case of Ireland (see 29 Vict. c. 1, continued for a short period by annual acts).

In the United States of America the law of habeas corpus has been inherited from England, and has been generally made to apply to commitments and detentions of all kinds. Difficult questions, unknown to English law, have arisen from the peculiar features of the American State-system. Thus the constitution provides that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasions, the public safety may require it and it has been the subject of much dispute whether the power of suspension under this provision is vested in the president or the congress. The weight of opinion seems to lean to the latter alternative. Again, conflicts have arisen between the courts of individual States and the courts of the Union. It seems that a State court has no right to issue a habeas corpus for the discharge of a person held under the authority of the Federal Government. On the other hand, the courts of the Union issue the writ only in those cases in which the power is expressly conferred on them by the constitution.