[Sidenote: MANTON AND BAXTER.]
The King was by no means disinclined to relieve Dissenters from the
oppression which they experienced, provided he might extend relief on
his own authority, and at his own pleasure. In the autumn of 1688 he
granted an audience, at the Earl of Arlington's lodgings, to a few
Presbyterian clergymen. Of this interview, Dr. Manton gave an account
to his friend Richard Baxter. With characteristic graciousness, which
was the charm of his reign, and which, in spite of his vices, won many
hearts, Charles was pleased once and again to signify how acceptable
was the address presented by the Presbyterians, and how much he was
persuaded of their peaceable disposition; adding that he had known them
to be so ever since his return; and then he promised that he would do
his utmost to get them comprehended within the Establishment, and would
strive to remove all those bars which he could wish had never existed.
Something, however, he proceeded to say, must be done for public peace,
and they could not be ignorant that what he desired was a work of
difficulty, and therefore they must wait until the business was ripe.
In the meanwhile he wished them to use their liberty with moderation.
He observed that the meetings held were too numerous, and that (besides
their being contrary to law) they occasioned clamorous people to
complain, as if the Presbyterian design was to undermine the Church.
He instanced what he called the folly of one who had preached in a
play-house, upon which the ministers informed him they disliked such
conduct, and that they had rebuked the individual for affronting the
Government. The King instanced another case, but with a preface that
he greatly respected the person for his worth and learnings--meaning
Mr. Baxter, of Acton, who drew in all the country round. Manton replied
that Baxter went to church, and then preached himself during the
interval between morning and evening service. His first intention was
simply to benefit his own family; but it was hard to exclude such as in
charity might be supposed to come thirsting for spiritual edification.
Manton further alleged the general need of religious instruction, and
the fact that Nonconformists were not all alike. If people of unsober
principles were permitted to preach, he urged the necessity which lay
upon others to take the same liberty. His Majesty replied that "the
riffle raffle" were apt to run after every new teacher; but people
of quality might be intreated not to assemble, or, at least, not in
such multitudes, lest the scandal thereby raised should obstruct his
generous intentions. Charles seemed pleased when Manton suggested that
his brethren's sobriety of doctrine, and remembrance of His Majesty in
their prayers, were calculated to preserve an esteem for his person
and government in the hearts of his people, and Arlington plucked
his master by the coat, desiring him to note what was said. Manton
remarked, in conclusion, that Baxter would have accompanied them to the
audience, had he not been prevented by illness.[550]
[Sidenote: 1669.]
Sheldon, writing a letter from Lambeth on the 8th of June, 1669,
addressed to the Commissary of the diocese of Canterbury,--after
quoting His Majesty's denial of connivance at Conventicles, his
displeasure at the want of care in the matter manifested by the
Bishops, and his determination that they should have the civil
magistrates' assistance,--proceeds to direct that inquiries should be
made as to unlawful religious assemblies--what were their numbers,
of what sort of people they consisted, and from whom they looked for
impunity. Conventicles were to be made known to Justices, and if
Justices neglected their duty, their neglect was to be certified.
The Primate asked whether the same persons did not meet at several
Conventicles, which might make them seem more numerous than they really
were; and whether the Commissary did not think they might be easily
suppressed, by the assistance of the civil magistrate; the greatest
part of them being, as the Archbishop heard, women, children and
inconsiderable persons.[551]
[Sidenote: CONVENTICLES.]
Charles complied with the wishes of Sheldon so far as to issue a
Proclamation, complaining of the increase, and threatening the
punishment of Nonconformists; but he had no sympathy for the
intolerance in which such wishes originated.[552] He had said--if we
may trust Burnet's report--the clergy were chiefly to blame for the
popularity of Conventicles; for if they had lived as they ought, and
attended to their parish duties, the nation might, by that time, have
been reduced to ecclesiastical order. "But they thought of nothing, but
to get good benefices, and to keep a good table."[553]
Nonconformists naturally availed themselves of the circumstance that
the Conventicle Act had expired; and Baxter now had more hearers at
Acton than he could find room to accommodate. "Almost all the town and
parish, besides abundance from Brentford and the neighbour parishes,
came."[554]
[Sidenote: 1669.]
But though the Conventicle Act had expired, the Five Mile Act, as
Charles indicated in his Proclamation of July, 1669, remained in
force; and therefore, means existed, not only for silencing, but
also for punishing the Presbyterian Divine. Accordingly he was soon
involved in trouble. In a roundabout way, a warrant was procured, in
which Baxter stood charged with keeping an unlawful Conventicle. The
Oxford Oath being tendered he refused to take it, and argued, with his
usual keenness, against its imposition. One of the magistrates only
laughed, and Baxter was sent to prison.
To the inquiries issued by Sheldon in June, returns before the end
of the year were made, and they supply much valuable information
respecting Nonconformity.
A long list is given of Conventicles in the Metropolis. Manton's
congregation at his own house, Covent Garden, and Calamy's, next door
to the "Seven Stars," Aldermanbury, are estimated at 100; Zachary
Crofton's, Tower Hill, and Captain Kiffin's, of Finsbury Court, at 200;
Vincent's of Hand Alley, and Caryl's, at Mr. Knight's house, Leadenhall
Street, at 500; and Dr. Annesley's, in Spitalfields, at a new house for
that purpose with pulpit and seats, at 800; Owen, in White's Alley,
Moorfields, is mentioned without any number of hearers being returned.
It is stated in the report that besides those congregations which
are specified, there were many others at private houses; sometimes
at one house, sometimes at another. The several meetings of the same
persuasion, were composed, for the most part, of the same persons. They
were much increased by stragglers, who walked on Sunday for recreation,
and then went into the Conventicles out of curiosity. The worshippers
consisted of women and persons of mean rank. The meetings had increased
since the execution of the Oxford Act had been relaxed.
In the City of Canterbury, distinguished in the annals of both
Protestantism and Puritanism, Nonconformity took deep root. In the
parishes of St. Paul and St. Peter the Independents amounted to 500 at
least. They met in the morning at St. Peter's, in the afternoon at St.
Paul's. In St. Dunstan's there were Presbyterians, but they were not so
many as the Independents. In St. Mary's, Northgate, the Anabaptists
were few and mean in quality. The Quakers were numerous, but not
considerable for estate.
[Sidenote: CONVENTICLES.]
In the diocese of Chichester, the little market town of Petworth is
mentioned as containing 50 or 60 Nonconformists, some of the middle
sort, others inferior; Largesale as numbering about 40, yeomen and
labourers; Stedham as having sometimes 200, including some of the
gentry.
In the diocese of Ely, at a place called Stetham, mention is made of
about 30 or 40 who assembled by stealth and in the night, mean and
of evil fame, who had arms against the King. Of Doddington, in the
fen country of Cambridgeshire, it is remarked, that there were no
Dissenters in the parish, although there were divers of them in other
places. The promise of indulgence, the remissness of the magistrate,
the rumour of comprehension, the King's connivance, and the sanction of
grandees at Court, encouraged their hopes.
There is manifested throughout these statistics, a disposition on the
part of the reporters, to exaggerate the extent to which Nonconformity
prevailed. As for example, it is said of the _houses_ of Mr. Bond and
Mr. John Chapman, of Chard--"The numbers uncertain but always very
great, sometimes 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and oftentimes 700."
[Sidenote: 1670.]
From these returns, after making abatements on the score of
exaggeration, it appears that Dissent had by no means been crushed
by the violence it had endured. Consequently in the spring of 1670,
a new Bill against Conventicles was introduced: after being amended
and carried by the Commons, it was presented by Sir John Brampston
to the Lords, and it slowly passed through Committee; repeated
debates occurring with regard to its provisions. Seth Ward, Bishop of
Salisbury, supported, but Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, opposed the
measure, although the King, without desiring to see it executed, wished
to see it passed, and used his influence with the last-named prelate
to prevent his taking any part in the business; Wilkins, nevertheless,
courageously insisted upon his right as a Peer, and declined to
withhold either his vote or his voice. The Bill did not pass without a
protest being entered on the Journals.[555]
This Act--so commonly described as a revival of the Conventicle Act of
1664, that it is necessary to point out the fact of its being a new
piece of legislation--differed from the preceding enactment in these
important respects. It did not connect the penalty of imprisonment with
an attendance on Conventicles, nor was the amount of fines fixed on so
high a scale. It specified for the first offence, instead of "a sum not
exceeding five pounds," the reduced fine of five shillings; instead
of imprisonment, or ten pounds for the second offence, it inflicted
a penalty of only ten shillings; and it said nothing whatever of
transportation, or of augmented punishment for a third offence.
[Sidenote: CONVENTICLES.]
Still it advanced beyond the earlier legislation on the subject in
other respects; because preachers were to forfeit £20 for the first,
and £40 for the second breach of the law. Also the Act stimulated
informers, by promising them one-third of the fines levied through
their diligence and industry; it conferred power on officers to break
open houses, except the houses of Peers, where Conventicles were said
to be assembled; it imposed a fine of £5 on any constable, who, being
aware of such meetings, neglected to give information of them, and a
fine of £100 on any Justice of the Peace who should refuse to execute
the law. It declared that all claims should be construed most largely
and beneficially for the suppression of Conventicles.[556]
Sheldon was delighted at the enactment of this statute, and zealously
availed himself of it.[557] Ward and Gunning, at the same time
distinguished themselves in repressing Dissent, and no colouring of
their conduct can hide their intolerance. The former, it is said,
made the diocese of Salisbury too hot for Nonconformists, and drove
many over to Holland to the great detriment of trade in the City of
Salisbury.[558] Gunning, whose propensities for public discussion
remained as strong as ever, sometimes played the part of a magistrate,
and sat upon the bench at quarter sessions, at other times he
challenged Dissenters of all sorts to engage with him in theological
tournaments.[559]
Informers were now let loose upon all kinds of inoffensive citizens,
and the severities of the New Conventicle Act were more than doubled
by connecting with them the execution of earlier statutes. No less a
person than Dr. Manton, after being discovered at a house in the Piazza
of Covent Garden, holding a religious service, had the Oxford Oath
tendered to him, and for refusing to take it, was committed a prisoner
to the Gatehouse.
[Sidenote: 1670.]
Of all sufferers the Quakers suffered most, because they were the
most persistent and resolute in continuing their meetings; because
when officers were on their way to seize them they would not escape;
and further, because they would pay no fines, not even gaol fees, nor
offer any petition to be set at liberty. Such people occasioned the
greatest perplexity to magistrates and the Government, and completely
wore out their patience; thus ultimately gaining their own point by an
invincible resistance under the form of perfect passivity. The famous
trial, in the month of August, 1670, of two friends, William Penn
and William Mead, affords an example of the injustice and oppression
which this remarkable sect had to endure, and also of the sympathy
with them in their wrongs which they inspired in the breasts of
their fellow-subjects. These two gentlemen were accused of holding a
tumultuous assembly in the public streets, simply because they preached
in the open air, and they were fined forty marks each, in consequence
of not pulling off their hats in court. The jury returned a verdict
to which the court objected, and for persistence in their own course,
the jurymen were fined forty marks apiece, and were imprisoned until
they should pay the amount. Afterwards they were discharged by writ
of Habeas Corpus, their commitments being pronounced, in the Court of
Common Pleas, to be totally illegal.[560]
[Sidenote: CONVENTICLES.]
In terminating this chapter it may safely be asserted that, during
the reign of Charles II., after the time when the Act of Uniformity
came into force, except for the short space presently to be described,
there occurred not any period, when persecution, in some form or
other, did not disturb the Nonconformists of this country; yet perhaps
it would not be going too far also to assert, that when persecution
reached its greatest height, there were some of the proscribed who
successfully asserted their liberty, and, either from the ignorance or
from the connivance of the predominant party, escaped the rigours of
the law. Sixteen months after the new statute for the suppression of
Conventicles had been passed, and when in many directions it was being
severely enforced, the Dissenters at Taunton, not only met together for
worship, but boldly celebrated a festival in honour of the deliverance
of the place, in the midst of the Civil Wars, under their illustrious
townsman Robert Blake.[561]