CHAPTER XXII.
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.
1673.
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]
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.
MEASURES OF RELIEF.
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.
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.
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.
TEST ACT.
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.
TEST ACT.
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]
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.
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]
NONCONFORMISTS.
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."
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."