The Solemn League and Covenant had been displaced a year, and the
New Parliament now resolved to brand it with fresh indignities.[256]
Accordingly it was, by the common hangman, burnt at Westminster, in
Cheapside, and before the Exchange. The executioner "did his work
perfectly well; for having kindled his fire, he tore the document into
very many pieces, and first burned the preface; and then cast each
parcel solemnly into the fire, lifting up his hands and eyes, not
leaving the least shred, but burnt it root and branch."[257]
Similar spectacles were enacted elsewhere; and at Bury St. Edmunds,
upon the anniversary of the Restoration--amidst floral decorations,
and the adornment of houses with tapestry and pictures, after service
at church, Hugh Peters was gibbeted in effigy, with the Solemn
League grasped in his hand, and the Directory tucked under his arm.
In Southampton, after the firing of culverins, and the marching of
scarlet-robed Aldermen, there followed the burning of the Covenant, "in
a stately frame, taken from the chancel of an Anabaptist Church."[258]
[Sidenote: PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT.]
As a further indication of the temper of the Commons at the
moment, it may be stated, that the Speaker rebuked the Mayor of
Northampton--summoned to the bar of the House for irreverent carriage
in the church, and at the communion table--and that a Bill was read
three times for preventing the mischiefs and dangers, which might arise
from certain persons called Quakers, and others, "refusing to take
lawful oaths."[259]
Ere the House had been sitting two months, Bills were introduced of
such a character as to prove, that, from the beginning of the Session,
measures had been framed for bringing back the Church to the standard
of former days, without making any concessions to Nonconformists. The
Bills now about to be described, did not appear one after another, as
expedients adopted for public safety in consequence of plots, real or
suspected; but they constituted parts of one coherent and comprehensive
method for re-establishing Episcopacy and crushing Dissent. They must
be traced out distinctly.
I. A Bill for restoring the prelates to the Upper House was introduced
to the Commons by "a gentleman of a Presbyterian family," and it
met with little opposition. The ancient constitution of the Upper
House could be successfully pleaded in its favour, but it involved
the principle of a State Establishment of religion; and would, if
discussed by voluntaries on the one hand, and by the advocates of a
nationally-established Church on the other, raise the whole question
as to the Christian legitimacy and the social justice of such an
arrangement. It involved, also, the recognition of Prelacy as the
most expedient, if not the most scriptural form of ecclesiastical
government, and would thus present a momentous subject of controversy
to Presbyterians. But few, if any, decided voluntaries could then be
found in the House of Commons; the number of Presbyterians also was
small, and their influence manifestly on the decline.
[Sidenote: 1661.]
Upon the Bill reaching the Lords, some obstruction of a very different
kind from that which, under other circumstances, might have been
expected from the parties just named, arose from the Roman Catholic
Earl of Bristol. He obtained an interview with the King and told him
"that if this Bill should speedily pass, it would absolutely deprive
the Catholics of all those graces and indulgence which he intended
to them; for that the Bishops, when they should sit in the House,
whatever their own opinions or inclinations were, would find themselves
obliged, that they might preserve their reputation with the people, to
contradict and oppose whatsoever should look like favour or connivance
towards the Catholics: and therefore, if His Majesty continued his
former gracious inclination towards the Roman Catholics, he must put
some stop (even for the Bishops' own sakes) to the passing that Bill,
till the other should be more advanced, which he supposed might shortly
be done."[260] Charles listened, and desired the Earl to inform his
friends in the House, that he "would be well pleased, that there
should not be overmuch haste in the presenting that Bill for his Royal
assent." Its progress was accordingly retarded in Committee, until the
Chancellor decided the Monarch, who--veering from point to point, as
influence brought to bear on him by his Courtiers varied, although,
no doubt, he was in his heart more disposed to follow Bristol than
Clarendon--at last consented that the Bill might be despatched. It
passed at the end of the Session; and when the Parliament was adjourned
at the end of July, and the Speaker in his robes, at the summons of
the Black Rod, knelt before the enthroned Sovereign, the measure was
the subject of emphatic reference in a speech filled with quaint
conceits.[261]
[Sidenote: PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT.]
II. Next, in the course of proceedings, bearing upon religion, came
the Bill for the well-governing of Corporations. It was early read,
speedily committed, and largely discussed; and within a month of its
being introduced, it passed the Lower House. The Lords amended it, and,
according to the complaint of the Commons, changed "the whole body
of the Bill." First read on the 19th of June, it did not receive the
Royal assent until the 20th of December.[262] The Act required that all
members of Corporations should, besides taking the Oath of Supremacy,
swear that it is not lawful, under any pretence, to bear arms against
the King, and that the Solemn League and Covenant was illegal. It also
declared every one ineligible for a municipal office, who had not,
within one year, received the Lord's Supper, according to the rites of
the Church of England.
[Sidenote: 1661.]
III. The House, on the 25th of June, appointed a Committee to report,
how far the coercive power of Ecclesiastical Courts had been taken
away, and to prepare a Bill for their restoration. The Bill provided
that, although the High Commission had been abolished, Archbishops,
Bishops, and other persons exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction,
should have their power restored as before, two provisions being
subjoined--one forbidding the use of the _ex officio_ oath, and another
preserving the Royal Supremacy from abridgment. This Bill involved
the further re-establishment of Episcopalianism. It does not appear
that any debate was raised on that ground. The Bill passed, as if a
matter of course; and together with the Bill, reinstating the Bishops,
received the Royal assent before the end of July.[263] Thus within
a few weeks, three measures were introduced, and two of them were
carried, tending to repress Dissent and consolidate the Episcopalian
Church. The fourth measure, which was central in point of importance,
remains to be considered. Its origin and progress must be patiently
followed.
[Sidenote: PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT.]
IV. Whilst many of the Episcopalian party assumed the existence of a
legal obligation to use the Common Prayer, some Nonconformists adopted
this curious line of argument: "That the Common Prayer Book, 5th and
6th of Edward VI., with some alterations made 1st of Elizabeth, was so
established we know, but what that book was, or where it is, we cannot
tell; it is apparent that the books ordinarily walking up and down
are not so established."[264] It would seem as if this odd kind of
objection secured some respect; for the first step towards a settlement
of the question of worship is found in a resolution, by the House of
Commons, that a Committee of all the members, who were of the Long
Robe,[265] should view the several laws for confirming the Liturgy of
the Church of England, and make search, whether the original Book of
the Liturgy, annexed to the Act passed in the fifth and sixth years
of the reign of King Edward VI., was still extant; they were also "to
bring in a compendious Bill to supply any defect in the former laws,
and to provide for an effectual conformity to the Liturgy of the Church
for the time to come."
It cannot be ascertained how the new measure originated, but we may
be sure that Government would not leave it to be dealt with by any
private person. It formed part of a manifold scheme which must have
had a single origin. The practice of holding Cabinet meetings--long
regarded with jealousy by pedantic Constitutionalists--had commenced in
the reign of Charles I. That businesslike and hard-working Monarch had,
from time to time, drawn around him a few select members of his Privy
Council, whom he assembled in his _Cabinet_, as it was called; and it
appears that sometimes they had been obliged to register his absolute
decrees, rather than by their advice to control his headstrong career.
Charles II., idle and dissolute--in that respect the opposite of his
father--held meetings of the same description, not that he might guide
the helm, but often that he might sit on the quarter-deck, and laugh
and joke with the officers, whilst they managed the ship very much as
they pleased. The proposal of a new Law of Uniformity probably was made
and discussed at one of these private conferences; and it also seems
probable, that the proposal emanated from Lord Clarendon, who was, to
all intents, Prime Minister.
[Sidenote: 1661.]
In connection with the appointment of the Committee, the House
recommended that the preparation of the Bill should be entrusted to the
care of Serjeant Keeling. He had been engaged as Junior Counsel for the
Crown on the trial of the Regicides, in 1660; and for his activity and
zeal on that occasion, had attained to the distinction of the coif.
He was subsequently entrusted with the prosecution of Hacker, Colonel
of the Guard at the execution of Charles I. After the new Bill of
Uniformity had passed, he conducted the prosecution of Sir Henry Vane,
in 1662; and on each of these occasions approved himself to the ruling
party, and especially to Clarendon, as a useful instrument. Created a
puisne Judge in 1663, he subsequently rose to a Chief Justiceship, over
the head of Sir Matthew Hale; and whilst on the bench manifested his
devotedness to the Church, by fining a jury one hundred marks each,
for acquitting a few poor people, who assembled on Sunday with Bibles
without Prayer-books. He was a violent man, and had the character
of being more fit to charge Roundheads under Prince Rupert, than to
charge juries from the bench of justice.[266] When, at length, his
arbitrary proceedings and a contemptuous allusion which he made to
Magna Charta, brought him under the notice of Parliament, he escaped
its condemnation, only by an act of obsequious submission.
The Bill prepared by this lawyer came before the Commons on the 29th
of June, and was read a first time. The second reading followed on the
3rd of July. No account is preserved of the debate. History is as
silent respecting what ensued within the walls of St. Stephen's after
Keeling had expounded his measure, as it is silent relative to any
discussion of the principle and details of the other Bills previously
introduced for the re-institution of the Episcopalian Church. The
Serjeant, perhaps, would deem it unnecessary to enter into a lengthened
argument in favour of imposing some one form of religious worship upon
the nation, since the desirableness of such uniformity was a forgone
conclusion with almost all the members of the House. But would he not
defend his proposal against the objections of Presbyterians? Would not
they have something to advance during the proceedings? The wish to know
what was said on either side seems altogether in vain.
[Sidenote: 1661.]
Upon the second reading, the printed Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth,
not that of Edward, in 1552, was attached to the Bill, and a Committee
was named to meet in the Star Chamber. They were directed, if the
original book of Edward before specified, could not be found, to report
upon the printed one of Elizabeth. No reference to the original book
of Edward appears in the subsequent proceedings.[267] On the day when
the Bill was committed, Serjeant Keeling, with Sir John Maynard, and
another member, were ordered to prepare a measure for "calling in all
seditious and schismatical books and pamphlets;" and the names of the
members who had not taken the Lord's Supper were reported. The House
with one hand thus exercised Church discipline, whilst with the other
hand it was making Church law. Upon the 8th of July, Sir Edmond Peirce
reported that several amendments had been agreed to; and upon the 9th,
the "Bill for the Uniformity of Public Prayers and Administration
of Sacraments" was read a third time and passed; and instead of a
Prayer Book, printed in the reign of Elizabeth, another printed in
the reign of King James (1604) "was, at the Clerk's table, annexed
to the said Bill; part of the two prayers inserted therein, before
the Reading Psalms, being first taken out, and the other part thereof
obliterated."[268] This copy of the Prayer Book appears to have been
attached to the Bill chiefly for the sake of form, as the Book had not
yet been examined and revised by Convocation. That important business
was not performed until the close of the year; and in the final stage
of proceedings, before the Act of Uniformity passed, this scarcely
altered volume was superseded by the revised one, which was fastened to
the Bill as passed, and which will be described in the Appendix to this
History.
Thus everything connected with the proceedings showed the utmost
despatch; and upon Wednesday the 10th of July "the Bill for
establishing the Book of Common Prayer was brought up to the Lords by a
very great number of members of the House of Commons, to testify their
great desire for the settlement of the Church of England."[269]
[Sidenote: PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT.]
The Bill as it left the Commons differed materially from the Act as it
ultimately passed. Those differences will appear in the sequel.
Although the Bill reached the Upper House on the 10th of July, it
did not come under discussion there for more than five months. This
may be accounted for. Curious as it may seem, the Bill for Uniformity
had passed the Commons before it had been decided what the Uniformity
should be. New prayers were composed by Convocation before it broke up
in July; but the revision of the Prayer Book by Convocation did not
commence until the month of November, four months after the Bill had
been sent up from the Commons. The Bill could not be completely carried
before the revision was settled; and the Convocation did not accomplish
that task until the end of the year. Another cause of delay is seen
in the fact, that the Bishops were not restored to their seats until
the 20th of November; and it was important, if not constitutionally
essential, for them to take part in the decision of a question like
this.
At the time when the new Bill reached the Lords, they were engaged upon
a report concerning the penal laws against Papists. Hoping to share
in any relief which might be extended to the last-named religionists,
certain Anabaptists and "good Christians," as they called themselves,
had presented a petition upon the 5th of July, and were on the 12th
permitted to plead on their own behalf. The Lords finished the report
on the penal laws against Catholics upon the 16th of the month; and
a Committee was then appointed to prepare a Bill to repeal certain
statutes concerning Jesuits, also the clause in the Act of the 35th of
Queen Elizabeth c. i., respecting Nonconformists, together with the
writ _de Hæretico Comburendo_. The reasons of the alterations were to
be set forth, and proper remedies were to be devised for preserving the
Protestant religion from any inconveniences incident upon the repeal
of these ancient enactments. Such proceedings, at first sight, appear
as so much progress towards religious liberty; but there is ground for
believing that the reference to the statute against Nonconformists,
only served to cover some relief designed for the Papists. Whatever
the real intention might be, the whole business soon dropped, and
no further allusion to it is found in the Journals; nor during the
remainder of the year 1661 is any further mention made of the Bill of
Uniformity.
[Sidenote: 1661.]
In those days the transmission of intelligence to the provinces could
not be otherwise than slow, and when it had reached its destination it
often proved inaccurate. The broad-wheeled coach, or the horse laden
with saddle-bags, could only, with measured pace, convey the London
citizen to the house of a country friend. The news which he related
at the supper-table, or which he conveyed in some quaintly-written
epistle, would then be stale indeed, according to the judgment of
such as are familiar with telegrams. The cumbrous stage-waggon, more
heavily laden, would be slower still in its movements, and by the
time it reached the rural inn, the newspapers it carried would be far
advanced in age. Altogether the _Mercuries_ were tardy in their flight,
and the _Public Intelligencers_ were addicted to garbling reports, and
falsifying stories. What had been done in the Session would, therefore,
not be known in distant counties until some time afterwards; and then,
probably, in some instances, reports would be circulated through a town
or a village in erroneous form.
[Sidenote: STATE OF FEELING.]
Tidings of the new Bill, in confused fashion, struggled down to
Worthenbury, seven miles from Wrexham, where lived the eminently pious
Philip Henry. Just before the Bill passed its last stage in the Lower
House, he received news from London of speedy severity intended
against Nonconformists. In daily doubt of what was to happen, he, on
the 7th of July recorded, that "In despite of enemies the Lord hath
granted the liberty of one Sabbath more." Next day he received a letter
from Dr. Bridgeman (the restored Rector), informing him that if he
did not speedily conform, he, Dr. Bridgeman, could no longer protect
him. Henry wrote a "dilatory answer," to the Episcopalian clergyman,
hoping that time might bring some deliverance. The old Incumbent acted
kindly, and showed no sympathy with the ruling powers. On the 24th,
news of the progress of the Bill reached the Flintshire rectory, and
shaped itself into a report, that the Bill had passed both Houses,
and now only waited His Majesty's assent. "Lord, his heart is in Thy
hand," ejaculated the devout Puritan; "if it be Thy will, turn it;
if otherwise, fit Thy people to suffer, and cut short the work in
righteousness."[270]
Means were not wanting for the annoyance of Nonconformist ministers
by those who wished to restore the surplice and the Liturgy; and
on Sunday, the 25th of August, 1661, just a year before the legal
enforcement of Uniformity, Oliver Heywood had the Prayer Book publicly
presented to him in his Church, with a demand that he would use it in
the devotions of the day. It was laid on the pulpit cushion. He quietly
took it down, and placed it on the reading-desk, and then went on with
the service in the accustomed Presbyterian fashion, being "wonderfully
assisted," as he remarks, "that day, in praying and preaching."
[Sidenote: 1661.]
It is difficult, even amidst the strongest excitement of the nineteenth
century, to conceive of the bitter feelings which existed in the middle
of the seventeenth. Our abuse is courtesy, compared with the abuse
which prevailed then. Fierce diatribes were uttered from parish pulpits
by restored Incumbents against Roundheads, Anabaptists, and Quakers.
They were denounced as rebels who had narrowly escaped the gallows.
"Many of you," said Dr. Reeve, in the Abbey Church of Waltham, "have
gotten a pardon for all your exorbitances, but death will seal no
act of indemnity. Ye have escaped the halter of many of your fellow
miscreants, but death hath set up her gibbet for you."[271] The
press also was plied for reducing intractable parishes into a state
of submission. Swarms of pamphlets and broadsides were issued--some
reprints, some originals--with a view to support the Church by
argument, or by satire, or by ridicule.[272] Marvellous stories also
were manufactured about the devil having appeared to fanatics, who,
late at night, were on their way to Conventicles; and sharp, severe,
and unjust things were also said on the other side.[273]