CHAPTER XVI.
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]
1664.
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
CONVOCATION.
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.
SHELDON'S INQUIRIES.
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.