CHAPTER XX.
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]
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]
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]
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.
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."
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.
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.
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]
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]