[Sidenote: POLITICAL PARTIES.]
The Tenth Session of Charles' Second Parliament opened on the 4th of
February, 1673. His Majesty's Speech glanced at the Indulgence, as
having produced a good effect by producing peace at home when there
was war abroad; and as not intended to favour the Papists, inasmuch as
they had freedom of religion only "in their own houses, without any
concourse of others." The oration of Shaftesbury, the Lord Chancellor,
in like manner touched upon the same points, and he endeavoured to
vindicate the measure from misconstruction, and asserted the success
with which it had been attended.[584] But the well-known character
of the Cabal, and the now equally well-known character of the King,
whose leaning towards Popery had become apparent, inspired the Commons
with sentiments which set them in opposition to the Royal policy. As
Tory and Whig, Conservative and Radical are terms now indicating
parties in the State divided upon great questions, so the Court party
and the Country party were corresponding appellations at the period
under review. But as it is now, so it was then--parties, at times,
erratically burst into circles not coincident with their professed
principles; and thus a door was opened for bandying to and fro violent
recriminations, on the score of inconsistency. The Court party, led by
the Cabal, through introducing and supporting a Grant of Indulgence,
seemed to be favouring the very Nonconformity which, in 1662 and in
subsequent years, they had sedulously endeavoured to crush out of
existence; and the Country party, through resistance of an usurped
prerogative, came to look like enemies of that very religious freedom,
whose last hopes had once been thought to lie within their bosoms. But
in fact the inconsistency on both sides is more apparent than real--for
still the one party aimed at the establishment of despotism, and the
other aimed at the advancement of liberty. The ends of the two parties
were still the same as they had ever been; they had only changed
their means. The Court had carried all before it at the time of the
Restoration. It then appeared as the upholder of the Throne, of the
Church, of the Prayer Book, of old English institutions and customs.
In the fervour of reborn loyalty, amidst a flush of feudal enthusiasm,
on the return of an exiled chief, and completely borne away with the
joy attendant on the revival of ancient and endeared customs, the
people had rallied around the King's party, applauding it to the echo.
Now a change came. Admiration of Charles II. had begun to subside;
his character was seen through; his profligacy was notorious; his
irreligion excited the displeasure of the sober-minded; his profusion
touched the pockets of the economical; and his dependence upon France
quickened the jealousy of all true patriots. The Cabal and the Court
were found to be in league with the Crown for purposes inimical to
the Commonwealth; therefore the nation expressed its deep uneasiness;
and the result being, that as seats in Parliament, now in its twelfth
year, fell vacant through the death of members, the candidates elected
to fill the vacancies were such as stood pledged to the Country party.
That party in the House of Commons thus by degrees became predominant;
and the King and Court received unpleasant proofs that they could no
longer carry things as they had done, with a high hand in their own way.
[Sidenote: 1673.]
[Sidenote: POLITICAL PARTIES.]
Under these circumstances, at an early sitting (the 8th of February),
a debate arose upon the subject of the Declaration. Sir Thomas
Lee, Mr. Garroway, and Sir Thomas Meres,--the bellwethers of the
Country party, as they were called, supported by Colonel Birch, the
Commonwealth's-man, and others,[585]--attacked the Royal proceeding,
which was vindicated by members on the other side. The Country party
(on the 10th) argued that the Declaration was unconstitutional;--that,
according to this method, the King might claim the power of changing
the religion of the country; that toleration ought to be granted,
but only by Act of Parliament; and that the document just issued,
in the name of the Monarch, would upset forty Acts of Parliament no
way constitutionally repealable, except by the authority which had
created them. In the course of the debate a member, addressing a
conspicuous Nonconformist in the House, remarked, "Why, Mr. Love, you
are a Dissenter yourself; it is very ungrateful that you who receive
the benefit should object against the manner." "I am a Dissenter,"
he replied, "and thereby unhappily obnoxious to the law; and if you
catch me in the corn you may put me in the pound. The law against the
Dissenters I should be glad to see repealed by the same authority
that made it; but while it is a law, the King cannot repeal it by
proclamation: and I had much rather see the Dissenters suffer by the
rigour of the law, though I suffer with them, than see all the laws
of England trampled under the foot of the prerogative as in this
example."[586] The Court faction stood on its defence. Secretary
Coventry maintained that the King did not intend to violate the laws;
that exceptional circumstances required exceptional proceedings; that
the master of a ship has power in a storm to throw goods overboard,
though no such power belongs to him when the waters are calm. Finch,
the Attorney-General, asserted the dangerous doctrine, that, as the
King was Head of the Church, and as it was the interest of the nation
to have a temporal and not a spiritual Pope, His Majesty might dispense
with the laws for the preservation of the realm; this legal functionary
dared to say, that the King, by his supremacy, might discharge any
cause in the Ecclesiastical Courts, as those Courts were his.[587]
[Sidenote: 1673.]
The subdued tone of expostulation which prevailed on the side of the
Country party is very remarkable, and a disinclination to come into
collision with the Throne was expressed by several of the members; yet
they pursued a decided course, and passed this resolution:--"That
penal statutes, in matters ecclesiastical, cannot be suspended, but
by Act of Parliament,"[588]--a resolution which they carried by 168
against 116. The House afterwards considered an address to the King,
embodying the resolution.
The debate, to which the resolution and the address founded upon
it gave rise, on the 14th of February, exemplified the same spirit
of moderation as had prevailed before. Sir Thomas Meres advocated
"ease fit for tender consciences"--in the words of the Breda
Declaration--"for union of the Protestant subjects;" and others
supported the plan of bringing in a Bill for the purpose. The
exact purpose of such a Bill did not distinctly appear, since some
members were for a wide comprehension, embracing within the Church
all Dissenters, and leaving no liberty for any who would not enter;
whilst others, again, contended for a liberal toleration to those who
remained outside of the established pale. This diversity of opinion and
this indistinctness of view gave considerable advantage to Secretary
Coventry, who retorted upon his opponents the differences which they
manifested, and the indecision which they betrayed. At length, however,
the address was carried without a dissentient voice.[589] It was
couched in terms so contrived as to tide over all difficulty.
[Sidenote: MEASURES OF RELIEF.]
[Sidenote: 1673.]
In the Grand Committee for preparing a Bill two questions arose.[590]
First, who were the persons to be benefited? or, in the quaint
phraseology of the time, "who were to be eased?" Should everybody be
included? Should all Protestants? Should all kinds of Dissenters,
including Levellers, respecting whose existence, however, within a
religious pale, doubts were expressed. Papists were altogether put
out of court. "The Papists," exclaimed Mr. Garroway, "are under an
anathema, and cannot come in under pain of excommunication." Finally,
it was resolved that ease should "be given to His Majesty's Protestant
subjects, that will subscribe to the doctrine of the Church of England,
and take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy." The second question
respected the nature and extent of the relief to be afforded. What
was "the ease" to be? Was it to be in the form of comprehension, or
of toleration, or of both? As to this point, the House seemed to be
in great difficulty. Indistinct ideas of some sort of comprehension
were most common. Even Alderman Love, a Dissenter, veered--if we may
judge from the imperfect report of his speech--now on the side of
liberty outside the Church, and now on the side of a large and liberal
inclusion within it. He confessed no kindness for those who desired
preferment, with conformity to the laws. Those on whose behalf he spoke
did not, he said, desire to be exempted from paying tithes, or from
holding parish offices, except the office of churchwarden, and that
"not without being willing to pay a fine for the contempt." He pleaded
that, after submitting to the test to be agreed upon, Nonconformist
ministers ought to be allowed to preach, "but not without the
magistrates' leave, the doors open, and in the public churches, when
no service is there." "This latter motion," says the report, "he
retracted, being generally decried." Then he rejoined that he used the
words "in the church," because people could not be thought to plot
in such a place. From a second speech by the same person it appears
that he moved _for a general indulgence by way of comprehension_, but
what he meant by that is not explained.[591] Comprehension in some way
was the object chiefly desired, and the terms of such comprehension
were largely and confusedly discussed. Even then a spirit moved over
the waters of debate which prepared for the order to be evolved at
the Revolution; but toleration, in its nature and principle, as it
was enforced by some of the Commonwealths-men, or as it was expounded
by John Locke, or as it is now universally understood, seems not to
have been stated by any who shared in the debate. This remarkable
circumstance indicates that none of the members who now sat on the
benches of St. Stephen's were exactly of the same stamp as some who had
occupied them before the Restoration.[592] Either such men were not
there at all, or they had changed their opinions, or they had become
afraid to utter what they believed. As we anticipate the ground which
was taken, and the sentiments which were prevalent when the Toleration
Act was passed, comparing the state of opinion at the Revolution with
the state of opinion in the year 1673, we must find it instructive to
notice the wonderful advance during the subsequent interval, and to
observe how silently and steadily the principles and the spirit of
justice were making their way. One member who favoured toleration was
so niggardly, that he desired only to "have it penned for such places
as should be appointed by Act of Parliament;" and another thought it
not reasonable that Nonconformists should have their "meeting-houses
out of town." Nor did the advocates of this restricted freedom plead
for more than its temporary concession. The heads of the Bill, as
at last concocted, were, first, in reference to comprehension, that
subscription should be required to the doctrinal Articles of the Church
of England, and that the requirement for declaring "assent and consent"
to the Prayer Book, should be repealed; and next, in reference to
toleration, that pains and penalties for religious meetings with open
doors should be no longer inflicted, and that teachers should subscribe
and take the prescribed oaths at the quarter sessions. The Act should
continue in force for a year, and from thence to the end of the next
session of Parliament.
[Sidenote: MEASURES OF RELIEF.]
These resolutions were adopted on the 27th of February,[593] and a Bill
founded upon them was read a third time on the 17th of March.[594] On
the second of these occasions, Secretary Coventry said he hoped the
measure, which did not fix sufficient limitations, would not destroy
the Church. To attempt such toleration as had never been tried before,
he maintained to be a frivolous expedient, the consequences of which
it would be beyond their power to remedy. One speaker uttered the
oft-repeated charge: "Dissenters grow numerous. If you pass this Act,
you give away the peace of the nation. A Puritan was ever a rebel;
begin with Calvin. These Dissenters made up the whole army against the
King. The destruction of the Church was then aimed at. Pray God it be
not so now!"[595] The Republicanism of Nonconformists appears to have
been a stock argument against granting them any liberty.
[Sidenote: 1673.]
The Bill did pass the Commons, and this fact proves that, however
inadequate might be the enunciation of the principles of civil and
religious liberty, the House departed from the doctrines upheld by it
ten years before. The distinction between articles of discipline and
of doctrine was laid down, burdensome impositions were proposed to be
removed, and a considerable amount of freedom was provided for those
outside the Establishment, in connection with a wider opening of the
door to those disposed to enter in.
Yet, after all, these debates and votes ended in nothing. The Bill
underwent several amendments when it reached the Lords. These
amendments were objected to by the Commons. Time was wasted between
the two Houses, notwithstanding the King's warning against delay; such
delay showing that neither portion of the legislature could have been
thoroughly in earnest about the proposal. Its fate was determined by
the adjournment of Parliament before the Bill had passed the Lords, and
by a prorogation after adjournment.[596]
About the same time another Bill came before the Commons' House,
enjoining the practice of frequent catechising in parochial churches; a
measure resembling that which the Presbyterians, in their day of power,
had so earnestly desired. Its progress, also, was stopped by the Lords.
[Sidenote: TEST ACT.]
[Sidenote: 1673.]
Coincident with the proceedings upon the Belief Bill were two very
important circumstances, namely, the passing of the Test Act and the
cancelling of the Declaration of Indulgence.
The former originated so early as the 28th of February, 1673, when
a motion was made for removing all Popish recusants out of military
office or command. This motion was exceedingly offensive to the King
and to the Court--being aimed at the King's brother, the Duke of York,
who was already generally suspected of having embraced the Romish
faith. There followed the same day a resolution, covering a still
wider ground of prohibition--_i.e._, "that all persons who should
refuse to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and to receive
the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England," should
be "incapable of _all_ public employments, military or _civil_."[597]
This attack on the Catholics was seconded by an address, agreed upon,
the 3rd of March, by the Commons against the growth of Popery. Also,
a Bill appeared in the Lower House, to prevent that growth, by the
method expressed in the above resolution. Strange to say, the idea
of the test so expressed emanated on this occasion from no other
person than Lord Arlington, the reputed Romanist, and a member of the
Cabal--partly, it is said, to gratify personal resentment, and partly
to accomplish objects of personal ambition.[598] In the course of the
debate in the Commons, a member tendered a proviso "for renouncing
the doctrine of Transubstantiation, for a further test to persons
bearing office;"[599] and again, strange to say, this additional
sting in a measure sufficiently irritating to His Majesty, the Duke,
and the whole Court, was introduced by another member of the Cabal,
whose name began with the second vowel in the notorious word--Ashley,
now Earl of Shaftesbury.[600] In this case, too, no less than in the
former, resentment and ambition, it is to be feared, mingled with
those motives which determined this step; for he aimed, by what he was
doing, to drive from power the Romanizing members of the Cabinet, and
to make himself master of the situation--a project, however, in which
he did not succeed. This additional barrier of Protestant defence,
constructed by Shaftesbury's hands, occasioned a polemical debate in
the House of Commons--the members talking much, and very confusedly of
Transubstantiation and of Consubstantiation, and of the Sacramental
doctrine held by the Church of England. The Bill, including the new
provision, passed the Commons on the 12th of March; and to add one more
strange circumstance to this history uniquely strange, the measure
found its most eloquent supporter in the House of Lords in the person
of the Roman Catholic Earl of Bristol, who defended it on the ground
that it would quiet a popular panic, by the simple removal of a few
Catholics from office, without enacting any new penalties against
Catholic worship. This looked like sacrificing personal interests to
patriotism; but the Earl surrendered all pretension to the character
of a confessor or a hero, by procuring the insertion of a clause
which secured to himself and to his wife a Royal pension, with an
exemption from the necessity of taking the test. The King--who at
first seemed as much incensed as his Courtiers--at last reluctantly
gave way; assent to the Bill being the price demanded by the Commons
for the replenishment of His Majesty's bankrupt exchequer. It is said
that three members of the Cabal--Clifford, Buckingham, and Lauderdale,
who supported the arbitrary power of the Crown, professed to despise
such vulgar temptations as had overcome their colleagues--and that
they encouraged the Monarch to imitate his father, by seizing the
obnoxious members of the opposition, by bringing the Army up to town,
and by making himself absolute master of the realm;[601] but Charles
was too indolent and too shrewd to venture on an attempt so bold and
so insane. The Test Act, therefore, passed; and whilst it originated
with one Catholic nobleman, and was advocated by another, it found no
opponent in the House of Commons on the part of the Nonconformists or
their friends. It is very true that the Bill pointed only at Catholics,
that it really proposed an anti-Popish test; yet the construction of
it, although it did not exclude from office such Dissenters as could
occasionally conform, did effectually exclude all who scrupled to do
so. Aimed at the Romanists, it struck the Presbyterians. It is clear
that had the Nonconformists and the Catholics joined their forces with
those of the Court, in opposing the measure, they might have defeated
it; but the first of these classes for the present submitted to the
inconvenience, from the horror which they entertained of Popery,
hoping, at the same time, that some relief would be afforded for this
personal sacrifice in the cause of a common Protestantism. Thus the
passing of an Act, which, until a late period, inflicted a social
wrong upon two large sections of the community, is to be attributed
to the course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the
sufferers.
[Sidenote: TEST ACT.]
[Sidenote: 1673.]
By the passing of the Test Act, Clifford, now an avowed Catholic,
was excluded from the House of Lords; and, in consequence of this
exclusion, he resigned the White Staff, and retired to the County of
Devon, where he died before the end of the year 1673. "He went off the
stage in great discontent."[602]
The next important circumstance at this period requiring our notice is
the withdrawal of the Declaration of Indulgence. When the address of
the Commons on that subject had been presented to the King he replied,
that he was troubled to find the Declaration had produced so much
disquiet, and had given occasion to the questioning of his authority in
ecclesiastical affairs. He was sure, he said, that he had never thought
of using power except for the peace and establishment of the Church; he
did not wish to suspend laws touching the property, the rights, or the
liberties of his subjects; nor to alter the doctrine or discipline of
the Church; he only wished to take off penalties, which he believed the
Commons did not desire to see inflicted according to the letter of the
law. He had no thought of neglecting the advice of Parliament; and if
any Bill should be offered him more proper to attain the end in view,
he would be ready to concur in it. With this answer the Commons did not
feel satisfied; but the King repeated in the month of March that, if
any scruple remained as to his suspension of penal laws, he faithfully
promised them what had been done should not be drawn into a precedent
for the future.[603]
[Sidenote: STATE OF NONCONFORMISTS.]
At the same time the Lord Chancellor stated that His Majesty had caused
the original declaration, under the Great Seal, to be cancelled in his
presence the previous evening.[604] By the operation of the Test Act,
by the cancelling of the Declaration, and by the dropping of the Bill
of Indulgence, Nonconformists were left in a worse plight than that
in which they had been before, so far as the law was concerned. The
state of the law, however, is not to be taken as an accurate index of
their condition. The pressure of a bad law depends very much upon the
hands employed in its administration. Happily the Declaration, which
ultra-Royalists were disposed to honour, on the very ground that it
was unconstitutional, had wrought a change in their feeling towards
Dissenters; and when the seal attached to it had been broken, still it
left, as it were, a spell upon their minds. The Churchmen's treatment
in many instances of those who were not Churchmen continued for a
while after the year 1672, to be less severe than it had previously
been.[605] The Church, gathered by Dr. Owen, enjoyed much freedom in
the year 1673, and afterwards. His Conventicle, which it would appear
was situated in White's Alley,[606] Moorfields, presented a list of
members including several persons of rank. We are enabled to enter
within the doors of the meeting-house, fitted up, no doubt, with
Puritan decency and comfort, whilst destitute of all beauty, and to
identify, amidst the hearers of the ex-Dean of Christ Church, certain
distinguished persons.
[Sidenote: 1673.]
There was Lord Charles Fleetwood, Cromwell's son-in-law, described in
an earlier portion of this work, whom Milton has eulogized as inferior
to none in humanity, in gentleness, and in benignity of disposition,
and whom Noble admits to have been a man of religion, and a venerator
of liberty. There was Colonel John Desborough, a staunch Republican,
a man of rough manners, whose name, together with that of Fleetwood,
Milton has honoured. There was Major-General Berry, once a friend of
Baxter's, and applauded by him as a man of sincere piety, till he
forfeited that excellent person's favour by becoming an Independent.
There was young Sir John Hartopp, of singular intelligence and
piety. Ladies of distinction also were there: the Lady Tompson, wife
of Sir John Tompson;[607] Lady Vere Wilkinson; Mrs. Abney; and
deserving of notice, more, however, for her eccentricities than her
excellencies--Mrs. Bendish, granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell.[608]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
[Sidenote: 1674.]
Yet about the time that Owen and his congregation remained unmolested,
or just afterwards--and the circumstance should be mentioned as an
illustration of the parti-coloured character of Church history in
those days--Nathaniel Heywood speaks of the persecution he endured.
Before the 9th of April, 1674, he had for four months experienced
more trouble and opposition in his ministerial employment than he
had ever done before in all his life. The archers grieved him, and
shot at him thirty-four _arrows_ (by which he meant _warrants_);
"but our bow," he goes on to say, "abides in strength by the hands
of the mighty God of Jacob. Officers have come eighteen Lord's days
together, but have not as yet scattered us."[609] A year afterwards
(May 1st, 1675) he writes,[610] "all these troubles are nothing to
that I am now mourning under--the loss of public liberty, a closed
mouth, dumb and silent Sabbaths--to be cast out of the vineyard as a
dry and withered branch--and to be laid aside as a broken vessel in
whom there is no pleasure, is a sore burden I know not how to bear--my
heart bleeds under it as a sting and edge added to my other troubles
and afflictions. This exercise of my ministry next to Christ is dearer
to me than anything in the world. It was my heaven till I came home,
even to spend this life in gathering souls to Christ; but I must lay
even that down at Christ's feet, and be dumb and silent before the
Lord, because He has done it, who can do no wrong, and whose judgments
are past finding out. I am sure I have reason to conclude with the
prophet, "I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have
sinned against Him."
In some parts of the country, Nonconformists would not believe that
the King intended to depart from his liberal policy. There was a
busy meddling informer at Yarmouth named Bowen,[611] who frequently
corresponded with Sir Joseph Williamson respecting the conduct of the
Independents in that town. From his letters, preserved in the Record
Office, some curious illustrations belonging to this period may be
drawn. His testimony in matters relative to the character and conduct
of Nonconformists is worth nothing, owing to his prejudices; but there
is enough of what is credible in his correspondence to throw light upon
some of their proceedings.
"The Nonconformists here give out that they are to have a hearing next
Friday before His Majesty's Council, and doubt not but they shall
sufficiently be authorized to meet in public as before. They were
so rude, as I am credibly informed, meeting at one Mr. Brewster's,
near Wrentham, in Suffolk, about twelve miles from hence, that two
informers coming to the House, and inquiring at the door what company
they had within, they within hearing these inquiries came running out,
crying thieves, and fell upon them, knocking of them down, then drew
them through the foul hogstye, and from thence through a pond of
water--one of the two is since dead by their rude handling."
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Wild rumours floated down to Yarmouth respecting an interview, which
Dr. Owen was said to have had with the King, in which the Independent
Divine spoke of the disturbance given to His Majesty's subjects, and
in which His Majesty promised that he would speedily redress their
wrongs. Encouraged by these rumours the Yarmouth Nonconformists paid no
attention to orders in Council, but assembled as before at their usual
place of worship, stating as a reason of the liberty they took, that
the King's mind had altered on the subject.[612] The "lukewarm," says
Bowen, "are here the most numerous; their religion must give way to
interest, and this is so involved within one and the other that the man
is not to be found who dare act. Many wish the work were done, but none
durst do it for fear he should suffer in his trade or calling, they all
having a dependence, little or much, upon one another."