[690] The test act began in a resolution (February 28, 1673) that all who refuse to take the oaths and receive the sacrament, according to the rites of the church of England, shall be incapable of all public employments. Parl. Hist. 556. The court party endeavoured to oppose the declaration against transubstantiation, but of course in vain. Id. 561, 592.
The king had pressed his brother to receive the sacrament, in order to avoid suspicion, which he absolutely refused; and this led, he says, to the test. Life of James, p. 482. But his religion was long pretty well known, though he did not cease to conform till 1672.
[691] Parl. Hist. 526-585. These debates are copied from those published by Anchitel Grey, a member of the Commons for thirty years; but his notes, though collectively most valuable, are sometimes so brief and ill expressed, that it is hardly possible to make out their meaning. The court and church party, or rather some of them, seem to have much opposed this bill for the relief of protestant dissenters.
[692] Commons' Journals, 28 and 29 March 1673; Lords' Journals, 24 and 29 March. The Lords were so slow about this bill that the lower house, knowing an adjournment to be in contemplation, sent a message to quicken them, according to a practice not unusual in this reign. Perhaps, on an attentive consideration of the report on the conference (March 29) it may appear that the Lords' amendments had a tendency to let in popish, rather than to favour protestant, dissenters. Parker says that this act of indulgence was defeated by his great hero, Archbishop Sheldon, who proposed that the nonconformists should acknowledge the war against Charles I. to be unlawful. Hist. sui temporis, p. 203 of the translation.
[693] It was proposed, as an instruction to the committee on the test act, that a clause should be introduced, rendering nonconformists incapable of sitting in the House of Commons. This was lost by 163 to 107; but it was resolved that a distinct bill should be brought in for that purpose. 10 March 1673.
[694] Kennet, p. 318.
[695] Commons' Journals, 20 Jan. 1674; Parl. Hist. 608, 625, 649; Burnet.
[696] Temple's Memoirs.
[697] Burnet says that Danby bribed the less important members, instead of the leaders; which did not answer so well. But he seems to have been liberal to all. The parliament has gained the name of the pensioned. In that of 1679, Sir Stephen Fox was called upon to produce an account of the monies paid to many of their predecessors. Those who belonged to the new parliament, endeavoured to defend themselves; and gave reasons for their pensions; but I observe no one says he did not always vote with the court. Parl. Hist. 1137. North admits that great clamour was excited by this discovery; and well it might. See also Dalrymple, ii. 92.
[698] Burnet charges these two leaders of opposition with being bribed by the court to draw the house into granting an enormous supply, as the consideration of passing the test act; and see Pepys, Oct. 6, 1666. Sir Robert Howard and Sir Richard Temple were said to have gone over to the court in 1670 through similar inducements. Ralph. Roger North (Examen, p. 456) gives an account of the manner in which men were brought off from the opposition, though it was sometimes advisable to let them nominally continue in it; and mentions Lee, Garraway, and Meres, all very active patriots, if we trust to the parliamentary debates. But, after all, neither Burnet nor Roger North are wholly to be relied on as to particular instances; though the general fact of an extensive corruption be indisputable.