CHAPTER VIII.
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]
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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."
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]