As there had been only an adjournment, and not a prorogation in the
summer of 1661, the Bill of Uniformity, carried by the Commons before
that period, remained eligible for consideration from the Lords in the
following January. They read the Bill a first time, on the 14th, the
Spiritual Peers before that date having taken their seats, and the
revision of the Prayer Book by Convocation having also been completed.
The Bill was read a second time, and referred upon the 17th of January
to a Select Committee. Upon the 13th of February, this Committee
requested to know whether they should proceed with the old Prayer
Book sent up to them by the Commons, or wait for the copy revised by
Convocation. That copy had been handed to the King for examination--a
thing not suited to his taste--but whether teased to the performance
of a task, or taking the whole matter on trust, it is certain, that
before the end of the month of February, he formally sanctioned the
alterations.[312]
The volume having been, by the two Archbishops presented to the Lords,
the Earl of Northumberland proposed that the old Prayer Book should be
adopted, in connection with Queen Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity--a
proposition which, however feasible at an earlier period, came now too
late.
[Sidenote: 1662.]
The slow progress made by the Lords had dissatisfied the Lower House,
and complaints from that quarter had reached the Royal ears; hence,
when the King gave audience to the Commons at Whitehall, on the 3rd
of March, respecting his revenues, he, having before that time sent
the revised Prayer Book to the Peers, could boldly speak as follows:
"I hear you are very zealous for the Church, and very solicitous,
and even jealous, that there is not expedition enough used in that
affair; I thank you for it, since, I presume, it proceeds from a good
root of piety and devotion; but I must tell you I have the worst luck
in the world, if, after all the reproaches of being a Papist, whilst
I was abroad, I am suspected of being a Presbyterian now I am come
home."[313] This strange kind of talk was followed by a declaration
of zeal for the interests of the Church of England. The Duke of
Buckingham, the Earl of Pembroke, Lord Wharton, and other Peers, were
added to the Committee of the Upper House for considering the contents
of the Bill.[314]
The secrets of that Committee have not been disclosed. It is remarkable
that it included a decided Nonconformist in Lord Wharton, one still
favourable to Nonconformity in the Earl of Manchester, and two Bishops
who had been Presbyterians--Gauden, the Bishop of Exeter,[315] and
Reynolds, Bishop of Norwich,--to say nothing of the Duke of Albemarle,
who had been identified both with Independents and with Presbyterians.
These persons formed but a small minority in a Committee which
consisted altogether of above thirty members; and they formed but a
feeble minority compared with such powerful men as Sheldon, Bishop of
London, Cosin, Bishop of Durham, Morley, then Bishop of Worcester, and
Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln. Was the opposition of the small minority
violently overborne? or did the small minority tamely submit? Wharton
was the only man likely to make much resistance.
[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]
The Earl of Bridgwater reported on the 13th of March, "divers
amendments and alterations," stating that they related to the Book
recommended by the King, and not to the Book brought up from the House
of Commons. The alterations in the Book were read before reading the
amendments to the Bill.
Two days after the report had been delivered, the business was
completed; the Peers had caught the spirit of Convocation, and, by
their haste now, had made up for lost time. Clarendon took occasion to
thank the Bishops for their revision of the Book in Convocation, and
requested them to thank their clerical brethren of the Lower House.
The preamble to the Bill received approval upon the 17th of March,
when the Minister just mentioned communicated a message from His
Majesty, and read a proviso which he wished to be inserted. The House,
evidently startled at the wish, requested him to read the proviso a
second time. This being done, the matter stood over for consideration
until the following day. The Journals are silent as to the nature of
this proviso; but a despatch by De Wiquefort, the Dutch Minister,
explains the matter. Amongst the gossip which he details to his
Court--how in a chest belonging to Henry Marten, was found a memoir
by the French Ambassador, full of the praises of the Commonwealth;
how the Irish Catholics were getting into trouble because they had
been negotiating with Rome to the King's prejudice; how they were
forbidden to present any request; how their agent was not allowed to
appear at Court; and how the Chancellor had a strong party formed
against him;--the writer communicates an important fact, which solves
the enigma left by the Journals. The Chancellor, says De Wiquefort,
informed the Lords that the King wanted a power to be inserted in the
Act of Uniformity, enabling him to relieve clergymen from an obligation
to wear the surplice and to make the sign of the cross.[316] From this
information it appears that Charles, even at this early period, aimed
at a dispensing power, a power which, before the close of the year,
he eagerly endeavoured to grasp. The Lords, however, were jealous of
the interference of the Crown in sending such a message as had been
delivered by Clarendon; and they questioned whether a resolution ought
not to be entered on the Journals in reference to it, fearing lest
their privileges might be endangered by their going so far as even
to take such a subject into consideration. The 19th of March found
the Bill recommitted, including the Royal proviso and the several
amendments.
[Sidenote: 1662.]
The amendments consisted of certain additions to the preamble--of the
connection with the Prayer Book of the Psalms of David, as they were to
be said or sung in churches; of the form of ordaining and consecrating
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;--of the substitution of the feast of
St. Bartholomew for Michaelmas, as the time when the Act should come
in force;--of the insertion of a new form, according to that adopted
by Convocation, declaring "unfeigned assent and consent" not only as
originally prepared to the use of the Book, but to all and everything
it contained and prescribed; and of an additional form, repudiating the
Solemn League and Covenant. Both these forms required subscription. A
further amendment rendered it necessary, that every minister of the
Church of England should be episcopally ordained, and that licenses
from Bishops should be secured by all who undertook the office of
Lecturers.[317]
[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]
Some of the amendments occasioned little or no debate, a circumstance
which surprises us when we consider the Puritan tendencies of certain
Lords. The points which chiefly occupied attention were--first, the
requirement of Episcopal ordination as a _sine quâ non_; and, secondly,
the imposition of the form which repudiated the Covenant. The debates
on these questions, so far as they can be recovered, will now be given.
I. It was argued by some who retained Puritan sympathies, that the
first of these requirements was not in accordance with what had "been
the opinion of the Church of England,--and that it would lay a great
reproach upon all other Protestant Churches, who had no Bishops; as if
they had no ministers, and, consequently, were no Churches:--for, that
it was well known, the Church of England did not allow reordination,
as the ancient Church never admitted it; insomuch, as if any priest of
the Church of Rome renounces the communion thereof, his ordination is
not questioned, but he is as capable of any preferment in this Church,
as if he had been ordained in it. And, therefore, the not admitting
the ministers of other Protestant Churches, to have the same privilege,
can proceed from no other ground than that they looked not upon them
as ministers, having no ordination; which is a judgment the Church of
England had not ever owned, and that it would be very imprudent to do
it now."
[Sidenote: 1662.]
This argument called forth replies from other members--most likely
from some of the Bishops--to the following effect:--"That the Church
of England judged none but her own children, nor did not determine
that other Protestant Churches were without ordination. It is a thing
without their cognizance; and most of the learned men of those Churches
had made necessity the chief pillar to support that ordination of
theirs. That necessity cannot be pleaded here, where ordination is
given according to the unquestionable practice of the Church of Christ;
if they who pretend foreign ordination are His Majesty's subjects,
they have no excuse of necessity, for they might in all times have
received Episcopal ordination; and so they did upon the matter renounce
their own Church; if they are strangers, and pretend to preferment in
this Church, they ought to conform, and to be subject to the laws of
the kingdom, which concern only those who desire to live under the
protection [thereof.] For the argument of reordination, there is no
such thing required. Rebaptization is not allowed in or by any Church;
yet in all Churches where it is doubted, as it may be often with very
good reason, whether the person hath been baptized or no, or if it
hath been baptized by a midwife or lay person; without determining
the validity or invalidity of such baptism, there is an hypothetical
form--'If thou hast not been already baptized, I do baptize,' &c.
So, in this case of ordination, the form may be the same--'If thou
hast not been already ordained, then I do ordain,' &c. If his former
ordination were good, this is void; if the other was invalid or
defective, he hath reason to be glad that it be thus supplied."[318]
Such a mode of silencing the scruples of ministers on whom the
ceremonies of reordination was imposed, came extensively into fashion
after the passing of the Act.
[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]
II. When the House resumed their discussions,[319] the point in
consideration was "the clause of ministers declaring against the
Covenant."[320] A form of abjuring both the doctrine of resistance, and
the obligations of the Covenant, had been required by the Corporation
Act. Upon comparing the words in that Act with the words in the Bill
of Uniformity, it will be found that the latter are the same as the
former, with the addition of two short clauses,--first, "that I will
conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law
established;" and, secondly, that the Covenant entailed no obligation
"to endeavour any change or alteration of government in Church or
State." As this form of renouncing the Covenant was only of temporary
use, and was to be abolished in twenty years, it ceased afterwards to
receive much attention; but, at first, it constituted a chief point of
interest both to the upholders and opponents of the Bill, even beyond
the importance attached to the form of subscription and declaration
respecting the Prayer Book. Many of the Peers, who had taken the
Covenant, were not so much concerned that the clergy should be obliged
to make this declaration, as that, when such a clause should be passed
and sanctioned, it might be inserted in other Acts relating to the
functions of other offices, so that, in a short time, what was now only
required of the clergy might be required of themselves.[321]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
The Puritan Peers warmly opposed the clause as unnecessary, and as
widening the breach instead of closing up the wounds which had been
made. Many men would believe or fear that this clause might prove a
breach of the Act of Indemnity, which had not only provided against
indictments and suits at law and penalties, but against reproaches
for what was past. As for conformity to the Liturgy, it was provided
for fully in the former subscription prescribed by the Bill. The
Covenant contained many good things, as defending the King's person,
and maintaining the Protestant religion: and to say that it entailed
no obligation would neither be for the service of the King, or the
interest of the Church; especially since it was well known, it had
wrought upon the conscience of many in the late revolution. At any
rate, it was now dead; all were absolved from taking it. If it had at
any time produced any good, that was an excuse for its irregularity:
it could do no mischief for the future; and therefore it was time to
bury it in oblivion.[322]
[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]
The Court party, Clarendon says, made themselves very merry with the
allegation, that the King's safety and the interest of the Church were
provided for by the Covenant, since it had been entered into, in order
to fight the King and destroy the Church. It contradicted itself; and,
if it were not so, the obligation to loyalty was better provided for
by some other oaths. The Bill was no breach of the Act of Indemnity,
the new Declaration was absolutely necessary, for the safety of the
King's person, and the peace of the kingdom; the Covenant was still
the idol to which the Presbyterians sacrificed: and there must always
be a jealousy of those who had taken it, until they had declared
that it did not bind them. The clergy, of all men, ought to be glad
of the opportunity which was offered, to vindicate their loyalty and
obedience.[323]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
The Bill being now in its last stage, the Lords appointed certain of
their number to draw up a clause empowering the King to make such
provision for any of the deprived clergy as he should see fit.[324] As
this clause--like the proviso respecting the cross in baptism--opened
the door for Royal interference--so, probably, like that, it originated
in a Royal suggestion. At all events, these two amendments in contrast
with others which increased the severity of the Bill, indicated the
existence of kindliness towards tender consciences, and impoverished
clergymen,--a disposition which Charles entertained, and in which
certain Lords, including some not puritanically inclined, concurred
with him.
When the Bill had reached a third reading, the amendments were referred
to the Commons for their consideration. The Commons vigorously set
themselves to work; the Committee sitting until eight at night--a late
hour in those days--and meeting early the next morning.[325]
No debate arose upon the alterations made in the Prayer Book by the
Houses of Convocation. The House of Commons, indeed, appointed a
Committee to compare the Book of Common Prayer sent down from the Lords
with the Book sent up by themselves; but the alterations were adopted
at once; or, rather, the Book as a whole was adopted. It is remarkable,
however, to find how then, as almost always, the members showed
themselves jealous of their privileges; for, upon a question being put,
whether the contents of the revised Book should come under debate, and
the question being negatived,[326] lest it should be thought that the
State in this matter submitted to the Church, and allowed the right of
Convocation to control Parliamentary proceedings, another question,
_i.e._, "that the amendments made by the Convocation, and sent down by
the Lords to this House, _might_ by the order of this House, have been
debated," received an affirmative answer, without a single dissentient
voice.
[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]
Whilst jealous of any interference with their own privileges, the
Commons had no regard for the interests or feelings of the Puritan
clergy; since they accepted the harsh amendments of the Peers, and
added others of their own, so as to render the Bill more intolerable
than it had been before. This circumstance has commonly been
overlooked, and therefore requires particular attention.
The Lords had introduced a reference to "the tenderness of some men's
consciences;" the Commons struck out the words.[327]
When the Lords' substitution of "Bartholomew" for "Michael the
Archangel," a substitution which aggravated the severity of the
measure, came to the vote, there were 87 for the Angel's day, and 96
for the Saint's.[328] The amendments and alterations respecting
ordination, subscription, and the Covenant, all of which had been
conceived in the same spirit of severity, were adopted without division.
[Sidenote: 1662.]
At the same time the Commons extended the operation of the measure so
as to bring within the meshes of their net not only the clergy, but all
who held offices in the Universities, and every kind of teacher down
to the village schoolmaster, and the tutor in a private family. All
such persons, as well as Deans, Canons, and Prebendaries, who had been
mentioned in the original Bill, were obliged, through the amendments of
the Commons, to subscribe the declaration of non-resistance; to conform
to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as now by law established;
to deny that any obligation had been incurred by taking the Covenant;
and to repudiate that oath as altogether unlawful. The addition of a
penalty of three months' imprisonment to meet the case of those men who
had no livings to lose, affords another instance of the harsh spirit
of the Lower House. Likewise these legislators drew within the reach
of the Bill, the case of those who held benefices without cures--for
the reason that the House did not "think fit to leave sinecures to
Nonconformists," nor permit a Nonconformist to hold a Curate's or a
Lecturer's place.[329] An attempt being made in a different direction
to confine preferment to those who should receive Episcopal ordination
"according to the form of the Church of England,"--a restriction which
would have excluded such as were in Romish orders,--the attempt met
with a different fate. It entirely failed.[330] The Lords' tolerant
proviso for dispensing with the cross and surplice was by the Commons
negatived at once;[331] and after an adjourned debate upon the
allowance of a fifth part of the income to ejected Incumbents, the
considerate amendment of the Peers was thrown out by a majority of
seven.[332]
[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
When all this had been done, a message reached the Upper House, on the
30th of April, to request a Conference with the Commons relative to the
amendments; but owing to the dilatoriness of the Peers the Conference
did not take place before the 7th of May, when Serjeant Charlton
defended the Bill in the shape in which the Commons had left it.[333]
In an elaborate oration he pointed out, and defended each of their
amendments, dwelling upon the extension of the Act to schoolmasters, as
necessary for the proper education of the young, the neglect of which
amongst the gentry and nobility had been, he said, the root of numerous
mischiefs in the Long Parliament. "It was an oversight," he added,
"in the usurped powers that they took no care in this particular,
whereby many young persons were well seasoned in their judgments as
to the King. This made the Commons take care that schoolmasters, as
well as ministers should subscribe, and rather more." The penalty of
three months' imprisonment, this gentleman ingeniously urged, was
designed to meet the case of those who had no livings to lose: it was
imprisonment in default of paying a fine: whilst the proviso introduced
by the Lords, to dispense with cross and surplice, he contended was
a thing altogether without precedent, which would establish schism,
and yet not satisfy those for whose relief it was intended. The
King's engagement at Breda to respect "tender consciences" had been
noticed by the Lords in support of their amendment; and now, with the
commonplace sophistries always at hand for the use of intolerance,
the manager laughed at the idea of calling schismatical consciences
"tender." "A tender conscience denoted," according to his definition,
"an impression from without received from another, and that upon which
another strikes;" what the definition exactly means I am at a loss to
comprehend. The Serjeant was clearer, and more plausible, although
equally sophistical in his legal reasoning, to the effect that the
Breda Declaration had two limitations: first, its validity depended
upon the sanction of Parliament; and, secondly, the bestowment of
liberty must consist with the kingdom's peace. As to the allowance of
fifths to the ejected ministers, he argued that it would be repugnant
to the idea of uniformity; that, "joined with the pity of their
party" it "would amount to more than the value of the whole living;"
that it would be a reflection on the Act; that it would impoverish
Incumbents; and that it would encourage Dissent. This argument was no
less heartless than contrary to the precedent, which, under similar
circumstances, had been furnished by the Long Parliament. Charlton
further suggested that the Lords should recommend Convocation, to
direct "such decent gestures," to be used during the time of Divine
service, as was fit. It may be stated that the Lords, on the 8th of
May, recommended to the Bishops and the House of Convocation, to
prepare some canon or rule for the purpose; and that the matter was
accordingly brought before Convocation on the 10th and 12th of May,
when the 18th of the canons of James I., relating to the subject,
underwent emendation.[334] Charlton concluded by saying, that he found
one mistake in the rubric of baptism, which he conceived was made
by a copyist, the word _persons_ being written instead of the word
_children_.[335] The amendments and alterations reported to the Lords
were all agreed to, and the clerical error in the Bill pointed out by
Charlton, was formally rectified at the Clerks' table by the Bishops of
Durham, St. Asaph, and Carlisle, under authority from Convocation.[336]
[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
The MS. volume, copied from the printed Book of Common Prayer, of the
edition of 1636, and altered according to the decisions of Convocation,
was with the printed Book attached to the Act.[337]