When the Bill had reached a third reading, the amendments were referred to the Commons for their consideration. The Commons vigorously set themselves to work; the Committee sitting until eight at night—a late hour in those days—and meeting early the next morning.[325]
No debate arose upon the alterations made in the Prayer Book by the Houses of Convocation. The House of Commons, indeed, appointed a Committee to compare the Book of Common Prayer sent down from the Lords with the Book sent up by themselves; but the alterations were adopted at once; or, rather, the Book as a whole was adopted. It is remarkable, however, to find how then, as almost always, the members showed themselves jealous of their privileges; for, upon a question being put, whether the contents of the revised Book should come under debate, and the question being negatived,[326] lest it should be thought that the State in this matter submitted to the Church, and allowed the right of Convocation to control Parliamentary proceedings, another question, i.e., "that the amendments made by the Convocation, and sent down by the Lords to this House, might by the order of this House, have been debated," received an affirmative answer, without a single dissentient voice.
UNIFORMITY BILL.
Whilst jealous of any interference with their own privileges, the Commons had no regard for the interests or feelings of the Puritan clergy; since they accepted the harsh amendments of the Peers, and added others of their own, so as to render the Bill more intolerable than it had been before. This circumstance has commonly been overlooked, and therefore requires particular attention.
The Lords had introduced a reference to "the tenderness of some men's consciences;" the Commons struck out the words.[327]
When the Lords' substitution of "Bartholomew" for "Michael the Archangel," a substitution which aggravated the severity of the measure, came to the vote, there were 87 for the Angel's day, and 96 for the Saint's.[328] The amendments and alterations respecting ordination, subscription, and the Covenant, all of which had been conceived in the same spirit of severity, were adopted without division.
1662.
At the same time the Commons extended the operation of the measure so as to bring within the meshes of their net not only the clergy, but all who held offices in the Universities, and every kind of teacher down to the village schoolmaster, and the tutor in a private family. All such persons, as well as Deans, Canons, and Prebendaries, who had been mentioned in the original Bill, were obliged, through the amendments of the Commons, to subscribe the declaration of non-resistance; to conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as now by law established; to deny that any obligation had been incurred by taking the Covenant; and to repudiate that oath as altogether unlawful. The addition of a penalty of three months' imprisonment to meet the case of those men who had no livings to lose, affords another instance of the harsh spirit of the Lower House. Likewise these legislators drew within the reach of the Bill, the case of those who held benefices without cures—for the reason that the House did not "think fit to leave sinecures to Nonconformists," nor permit a Nonconformist to hold a Curate's or a Lecturer's place.[329] An attempt being made in a different direction to confine preferment to those who should receive Episcopal ordination "according to the form of the Church of England,"—a restriction which would have excluded such as were in Romish orders,—the attempt met with a different fate. It entirely failed.[330] The Lords' tolerant proviso for dispensing with the cross and surplice was by the Commons negatived at once;[331] and after an adjourned debate upon the allowance of a fifth part of the income to ejected Incumbents, the considerate amendment of the Peers was thrown out by a majority of seven.[332]
UNIFORMITY BILL.
1662.
When all this had been done, a message reached the Upper House, on the 30th of April, to request a Conference with the Commons relative to the amendments; but owing to the dilatoriness of the Peers the Conference did not take place before the 7th of May, when Serjeant Charlton defended the Bill in the shape in which the Commons had left it.[333] In an elaborate oration he pointed out, and defended each of their amendments, dwelling upon the extension of the Act to schoolmasters, as necessary for the proper education of the young, the neglect of which amongst the gentry and nobility had been, he said, the root of numerous mischiefs in the Long Parliament. "It was an oversight," he added, "in the usurped powers that they took no care in this particular, whereby many young persons were well seasoned in their judgments as to the King. This made the Commons take care that schoolmasters, as well as ministers should subscribe, and rather more." The penalty of three months' imprisonment, this gentleman ingeniously urged, was designed to meet the case of those who had no livings to lose: it was imprisonment in default of paying a fine: whilst the proviso introduced by the Lords, to dispense with cross and surplice, he contended was a thing altogether without precedent, which would establish schism, and yet not satisfy those for whose relief it was intended. The King's engagement at Breda to respect "tender consciences" had been noticed by the Lords in support of their amendment; and now, with the commonplace sophistries always at hand for the use of intolerance, the manager laughed at the idea of calling schismatical consciences "tender." "A tender conscience denoted," according to his definition, "an impression from without received from another, and that upon which another strikes;" what the definition exactly means I am at a loss to comprehend. The Serjeant was clearer, and more plausible, although equally sophistical in his legal reasoning, to the effect that the Breda Declaration had two limitations: first, its validity depended upon the sanction of Parliament; and, secondly, the bestowment of liberty must consist with the kingdom's peace. As to the allowance of fifths to the ejected ministers, he argued that it would be repugnant to the idea of uniformity; that, "joined with the pity of their party" it "would amount to more than the value of the whole living;" that it would be a reflection on the Act; that it would impoverish Incumbents; and that it would encourage Dissent. This argument was no less heartless than contrary to the precedent, which, under similar circumstances, had been furnished by the Long Parliament. Charlton further suggested that the Lords should recommend Convocation, to direct "such decent gestures," to be used during the time of Divine service, as was fit. It may be stated that the Lords, on the 8th of May, recommended to the Bishops and the House of Convocation, to prepare some canon or rule for the purpose; and that the matter was accordingly brought before Convocation on the 10th and 12th of May, when the 18th of the canons of James I., relating to the subject, underwent emendation.[334] Charlton concluded by saying, that he found one mistake in the rubric of baptism, which he conceived was made by a copyist, the word persons being written instead of the word children.[335] The amendments and alterations reported to the Lords were all agreed to, and the clerical error in the Bill pointed out by Charlton, was formally rectified at the Clerks' table by the Bishops of Durham, St. Asaph, and Carlisle, under authority from Convocation.[336]