Within two years after the passing of the Act of Uniformity, the
clergy exerted themselves to obtain further legislation in favour of
the Church. From a petition which they presented to Parliament in the
year 1664, it appears they were anxious for the enactment of severe
laws against Anabaptists, who were complained of as fraudulently
industrious in making proselytes. They also desired to promote the
observance of the Lord's Day, by increasing the fine of twelve pence
in every case of non-attendance upon Divine service. They wished the
clergy to be assisted in recovering tithes, not exceeding the value
of forty shillings, by less expensive means than law-suits; and they
requested a more equitable method of clerical taxation than that which
then existed. They further asked for an augmentation of the incomes of
Vicars and Curates, and for the enforcement of the payment of Church
rates.[446]
[Sidenote: 1664.]
[Sidenote: CONVENTICLE ACT.]
How far this petition, which points to the alarming increase of the
Anabaptists, might influence certain proceedings of the same year,
it is a fact, that a law for the suppression of Nonconformity soon
afterwards appeared. Charles, when proroguing Parliament in the month
of July, 1663, had promised a further measure against Conventicles.
The recent Act of Uniformity had rendered the Dissenting clergy
liable to three months' imprisonment if they publicly preached; but
it had not directly touched the case of laymen, except so far as
schoolmasters were concerned. Through the application of Elizabeth's
Act of Uniformity, and of other laws for repressing civil disaffection,
laymen, frequenting Conventicles, became liable to penalties; but the
Conventicle Act, now to be described, aimed, by a direct and decisive
blow, at crushing for ever the nests of sedition. It was passed in
the month of May.[447] It recognized the Act of Elizabeth as still
in force; and it provided, that no person of sixteen, or upwards,
should be present at any assembly of five, or more, under colour of
religion "in other manner than is allowed by the Liturgy;" and that
every such offender should, for the first offence, be imprisoned for a
period not exceeding three months, or pay five pounds; for the second
offence, be imprisoned not exceeding six months, or pay ten pounds;
and, for a third offence, be transported, for seven years, to any
foreign plantation (Virginia and New England only excepted); the goods
of the offenders to be distrained for the charges of transportation,
or his service made over as a labourer for five years. The payment
of one hundred pounds would discharge from such imprisonment and
transportation; and such a fine was to be appropriated for the repair
of churches and highways. Escape before transportation subjected the
victim to death. Power was given to prevent Conventicles being held,
or, if held, to dissolve them. Any one who allowed a meeting in a house
or outhouse, in woods or grounds, incurred the same penalties as the
attendants. Gaolers were forbidden to allow offenders to remain at
large, or to permit any person to join them. The houses of Peers were
exempted from search, except by Royal warrant, or in the presence of
a Lieutenant, a Deputy-Lieutenant, or two Magistrates. Quakers, for
refusing to take oaths, were to suffer transportation. Noblemen, if
they offended against the law, were, in the first two instances, to pay
double fines--and in the third instance to be tried by their peers.[448]
The Bill proceeded upon the principle, already established by the
Act of Uniformity, that Nonconformist clergymen were incompetent to
preach; and it laid down another principle, a legitimate corollary
of the former, that Nonconformist laymen were, as such, incompetent
to worship. The intolerant measure would seem to have passed the two
Houses with little or no discussion, as not any notice is taken in
the _Parliamentary History_ of speeches delivered upon the occasion;
and Clarendon remarks, that, at this time, there was great order and
unanimity in debates, and Parliament despatched more business of public
importance and consequence than it had done before, in twice the
time.[449]
[Sidenote: 1664.]
As we examine the Act, we cannot help calling to mind the ordinance of
the Long Parliament in 1646, forbidding the use of the Prayer Book "in
any private place or family." Here, as in other cases, are seen the
footsteps of avenging Deities; and, as is their wont, they meted out
penalties exceeding the original offence. In this case, fines of five
pounds and ten pounds, indeed, just equalled the pecuniary mulcts of
Presbyterian law; but the _one_ year's imprisonment, without bail or
mainprise, threatened by the Long Parliament against a third offence,
was now thrown into the shade by the enactment--first, of a penalty of
transportation for seven years, in cases where means did not exist for
paying the sum of one hundred pounds; and next, of capital punishment,
in case of the convicted Conventicler being caught after making his
escape.
The difference in some respects, the similarity in others, between
the principles upon which the Anglican politicians proceeded in
their conduct towards Puritans, and the principles upon which the
Puritan politicians had proceeded in reference to Anglicans, has been
little, if at all, noticed. As to the difference, the Conventicle
Act regarded Conventicles simply as seditious, it punished men for
religious convictions, under pretence of preventing rebellion; on the
other hand the Long Parliament and Oliver Cromwell had forbidden the
use of the Prayer Book, in order to break up assemblies for worship
held by persons who, not without reason, were suspected of political
disaffection. There was a further difference--Clarendon and his party
sought to establish uniformity by the use of the Anglican Liturgy;
the Presbyterians had aimed at their uniformity through a prohibition
of that Liturgy, not by any enforcement, under penalties, of the
Westminster Directory. The Anglican law was prescriptive; the Puritan
prohibitive. But there is involved in all this a general resemblance
between the two. Neither appears thoroughly straightforward; each is
exceedingly intolerant; and both aim at doing one thing, under pretence
of doing something else. Yet let it not be forgotten, that while there
is little to choose between them in point of principle, the extent to
which persecution was carried, under Charles and his brother James,
immensely exceeded anything reached under the Long Parliament, or under
Oliver Cromwell.
[Sidenote: CONVENTICLE ACT.]
The new law was ordained to take effect after the 1st of July;
but formidable difficulties in the way of its execution presented
themselves as the time approached, arising from political disaffection,
from the numbers of Nonconformists, and from the sympathy which their
more tolerant neighbours felt with them in the sufferings which they
endured.
"The Quakers, Anabaptists, and Fifth Monarchy men," it is stated, in
the month of June, "will meet more daringly after the time limited in
the Act, and say they will neither pay money nor be banished. They have
solicited others of different persuasions to join them in opposing
the Act, and they get encouragement, though no promises. If dealt
with severely, a body of 10,000 would rise, and demand fulfilment of
the King's Declaration for liberty of conscience. They say, if their
spirit of suffering be turned into a spirit of action, woe to those
who stand in their way. Other Sectaries resolve to keep to the limits
of the Act, and increase their number as they can safely. The hopes
of a war with the Dutch, fermented by spies at Court, dispose the
desperadoes to dangerous resolutions."[450] This is the representation
of an enemy, and cannot be trusted for accuracy in particulars; but, so
far as a general determination to persevere in worship is concerned,
probably the writer is perfectly correct, and the whole drift of his
communication manifests the difficulty which was felt with regard to
the anticipated execution of the new statute.
The Congregational Churches about Furness were reported as resolved to
meet, notwithstanding the Act; and as wasting their money by rewards,
and by maintaining prisoners, and other people, who absconded in order
that they might not be cited to bear witness.[451]
[Sidenote: 1664.]
After the Conventicle Act came into force the number of offenders
excited attention, and created difficulty. Newgate was so full that it
bred an infectious malignant fever, which sent many to their long home;
and the magistrates, who thought their Nonconformist neighbours "unfit
to breathe their native air when living, buried them as brethren, when
dead." Stress was laid upon the great number of Dissenters, both by
enemies and friends. They were said to exceed "two parts of the common
people;" to have connection with the nobility and gentry; and to be
so numerous that His Majesty could not force them to conformity, by
banishment or death, without endangering the safety of the kingdom. Nor
were there wanting Churchmen, to plead for a lenient treatment of their
persecuted brethren, whilst they themselves complained that rulers
were winding the pin of Government so high as to threaten to crack the
sinews, and that so much formalism and corruption prevailed in the
Establishment as to provoke people to wish for its overthrow.[452]
Of the existence at this time of alarming disaffection amongst persons
of Republican opinions who had served in the Army, there cannot be any
doubt. Abundant indications of it are afforded in contemporary letters.
How, indeed, could disaffection but exist under a Government, which,
whilst denouncing plots and plotters, was, by its own intolerance,
stirring people up to rebellion? No one can be surprised that old
soldiers, who had fought for liberty, felt disposed again to draw
the sword, if any chance of success appeared. Where no signs of
resistance were made, and very many persons, either from worldly
policy, or from Christian patience resolved to be quiet, there
throbbed intense indignation at the infliction of so much wrong--a
temper with which it is dangerous for any Government to trifle. The
suspicion that Nonconformists were engaged in plots contributed to
increase a persecuting spirit. Local attacks might spring from Anglican
fanaticism, from private pique, and revenge, from the vulgar insolence
of mobs, and from the avarice or ambition of informers; but the
assaults which proceeded immediately from headquarters, as the State
Papers distinctly prove, were provoked principally by political fears.
[Sidenote: CONVENTICLE ACT.]
The Conventicle Act was executed with severity. A congregation meeting
at a baker's house in Maryport Street, Bristol, was visited by the
Mayor and Aldermen, who demanded admission; the baker refused, when
an entrance was forced by means of a crowbar, and the people and the
minister escaped through a back door. They were "hunted by the Nimrods,
but the Lord hid them many days." Once, somewhere in Corn Street, a
guard of musketeers came to take people into custody, when, it being
evening, the persecuted escaped through a cellar into Baldwin Street.
At another time, when the Mayor and Aldermen again beset the house,
a brother, sending his companions upstairs, contrived, by means of a
great cupboard, to hide the garret door.[453] Presbyterians at Chester,
disturbed in their worship, hid themselves under beds, and locked
themselves up in closets; and sixty men and women, in a village of
Somersetshire, were apprehended, and, in default of paying fines, were
sent to gaol.[454]
[Sidenote: 1665.]
Whilst Nonconformists were suffering from the Conventicle Act, the
King recurred to his scheme for granting indulgences; in favour of
which Lord Arlington, on behalf of the Catholics, and the Lord Privy
Seal, who was interested for the Presbyterians, plied an efficacious
argument. They urged that, frightened by recent laws and the zeal of
Parliament in the cause of the Church, Dissenters would gladly compound
for liberty at a reasonable rate, by which means a good yearly revenue
might be raised, and concord and tranquillity be established throughout
the kingdom. The King caught at this reasoning: a Bill was prepared,
in which Catholics as well as Protestants were included;--a schedule
having been drawn up, computing what they would be willing to pay. The
Bill entrusted the King with a dispensing power,--and the Royal origin
of the measure becoming known to the Peers, they offered no opposition
to the first reading; but afterwards, the Lord Treasurer, and many of
the Bishops, sharply opposed it, and Clarendon threw the weight of his
influence into the same scale. In a courtier-like speech, reported by
himself, he upheld Charles' Protestantism, and cleverly insinuated that
the question was not "whether the King were worthy of that trust, but
whether that trust were worthy of the King,"--that it would inevitably
expose him "to trouble and vexation," and "subject him to daily and
hourly importunities; which must be so much the more uneasy to a nature
of so great bounty and generosity,"--and that nothing was so ungrateful
to him as to be obliged to refuse. Even the Duke of York expressed
dissatisfaction--influenced, as is presumed, by the Lord Chancellor.
Few spoke in favour of the Bill, and it was agreed that there should
be no question as to its being committed--"which was the most civil
way of rejecting it, and left it to be no more called for." The only
results were, the mortification of His Majesty, and the augmentation
of bitterness against the Roman Catholics.[455]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
[Sidenote: 1665.]
An important change had occurred in the relation of the clergy
to the State at the opening of the year 1665, which we must step
back to notice. In ancient times they had possessed the privilege
of self-taxation, and this privilege survived the Reformation.
Ecclesiastical persons continued to vote subsidies from their own body:
the proportions being assessed by Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The
censures of the Church fell upon those who did not pay; and if Sheriffs
were remiss in executing the writ _de excommunicato capiendo_, Bishops
had their own prisons in which to confine the refractory: and it may be
concluded, that it came within the power of diocesans to sequester the
profits of incumbencies, when the holders of them refused to meet their
assessments. Parliament, in the reign of Henry VIII., had confirmed
such aids; and from that time the clerical tax, after being ratified
by the two Houses, could be levied in the way of distress. The whole
of this system of taxation had disappeared in 1641, when ministers of
religion, in common with other people, became subject to Parliamentary
assessment. A proposition to the effect that ministers should be
exempted from paying tenths and first-fruits had been entertained in
an early part of the Protectorate; and it had even been suggested that
they should be relieved from taxation altogether;[456] but this excess
of liberality bore no fruit, and at the Restoration the clergy fell
back into their old position. After the revision of the Prayer Book had
been completed, in the winter of 1661-2, Convocation did nothing but
grant subsidies,--beyond discussing such matters as the composition of
a school grammar, a petition from poor clergymen in the Isle of Wight,
and the translation of the Prayer Book into Latin.[457] A grant of four
subsidies in the year 1663 was confirmed by Act of Parliament;[458] but
before the close of that year, the Bishops and clergy began to regard
this rating of themselves as troublesome, and they found that both the
Court and the Commons were discontented, unless Convocation fixed their
contributions at a rate beyond all reasonable proportion. The petition
of the clergy, already noticed, looked in that direction, and noticed
the existing mode of Convocational taxation, as an ecclesiastical
hardship. Sheldon, and other prelates, it is supposed under the
influence of considerations of this kind, arranged with the Government
that the ancient custom of voting subsidies should be waived, and that
spiritual as well as secular persons should be included in the Money
Bills of the Commons. In promoting this alteration, the Archbishop
and his Episcopal helpers did not appear in the character of High
Churchmen, the alteration being thoroughly opposed to the ancient canon
law. And to encourage the clergy, it was proposed that two of the last
four clerical subsidies should be remitted, and that a clause should
be inserted in the new Act, for the saving of ancient rights. The Bill
passed on the 9th of February, 1665; and, at the same time, parochial
ministers acquired the privilege of voting for members of Parliament.
Collier remarks,--"that the clergy were gainers by this change is more
than appears."[459] And he is right. No doubt the change struck a fatal
blow at the importance and authority of Convocation; for Convocation,
like Parliament, had been valued by Sovereigns because of its holding
the purse-strings of a portion of the people; and when money no longer
flowed into the exchequer in the form of ecclesiastical subsidies,
Convocation sunk into neglect. It would be very surprising, if it were
a fact, that State Churchmen, desiring to maintain the independence of
the Church, did not foresee the operation of the change, and did not
attempt to prevent it: but the fact is, that Churchmen, just after the
Restoration, zealous for such independence, were neither numerous nor
influential, and that the majority of those in orders were decidedly
Erastian in their tendencies. The change, however, was one which, if it
had not been brought about by such motives of expediency as influenced
Sheldon, must have followed in the wake of advancing civilization--the
anomaly of a particular class left to tax itself not being permissible
in modern times: nor can it be doubted, that it is far better for the
temporal interests of the clergy, as well as of the laity, that they
should stand shoulder to shoulder, bearing together the burdens of
their country.
[Sidenote: SHELDON'S INQUIRIES.]
[Sidenote: 1665.]
Five months after this Act had passed, Archbishop Sheldon issued
orders and instructions to the Bishops of his province, concerning
ordinations, pluralists and their curates, lectures and lecturers,
schoolmasters and instructors of youth, practisers of physic, and
Nonconformist ministers. He complained of divers unworthy persons, of
late crept into the ministry, to the scandal of the Church, and the
dissatisfaction of good men; and to remedy these evils, Bishops were
ordered to be very careful what persons they received for ordination.
Inquiries were made touching pluralities, and whether pluralists kept
able, orthodox, and comformable _curates_ upon the benefices where
they did not themselves reside. The word _curates_, it may be remarked
in passing, had now changed from its ancient to its modern meaning;
and having been applied generally to all pastors, it was introduced by
the Archbishop as the title of distinct and subordinate officers.[460]
These orders may be divided into two parts--those which relate to
the internal government of the Church; and those which relate to
Nonconformists. The second part will be noticed in the next Chapter.